U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a tense telephone conversation shortly before Iranian missile strikes on Israel in April 2024 [1, 2].
The call occurred during a period of high regional volatility. The conflicting reports regarding the conversation suggest a complex diplomatic struggle to prevent a wider war while maintaining security guarantees for Israel.
Trump spoke from the White House in Washington, D.C., while Netanyahu was in his office in Jerusalem [2, 3]. According to some reports, Trump issued a demand that Netanyahu not launch further attacks on Iran [1, 2]. Trump said he wanted to prevent a wider regional war and believed that Israeli escalation could provoke more Iranian attacks [1, 2].
During the exchange, Trump said, "I told Bibi not to start a war. I said if they (Iran) stop, we can stop too" [1]. This suggests the U.S. president believed Iran had signaled a willingness to pause its aggression if Israel showed restraint [2].
However, other accounts of the conversation present a different narrative. The Globe and Mail reported that Trump expressed support for military actions taken by the Israeli leader [3]. Trump said, "I support any strikes on Iran that are necessary to protect Israel" [3].
These contradictions highlight the tension between the U.S. desire for regional stability and the commitment to Israeli defense. An unnamed analyst said Trump issued a "furious demand" that Netanyahu avoid further strikes [1]. Despite this, the U.S. administration continued to navigate the volatile relationship between the two nations and the Iranian government during the early April 2024 window [1, 2].
“"I told Bibi not to start a war."”
The discrepancy in reporting reflects the dual-track diplomacy often employed by the US in the Middle East. By simultaneously urging restraint to avoid a regional conflagration and pledging support for necessary defense, the US attempts to maintain a deterrent posture without triggering an uncontrolled escalation. The conflicting accounts of the April 2024 call underscore the difficulty of balancing these two objectives in real-time crisis management.
