It is neither Hamas nor the second phase in Gaza that primarily motivates Netanyahu's intention at the summit, but rather Iran.
In recent days, the Trump administration has boarded or seized three oil tankers carrying Venezuelan oil or destined for Venezuela (such as the Bella 1). The most blatant seizure—in terms of illegality—involves a Chinese-owned vessel flying the Panamanian flag, which was reportedly headed for China and was not on any sanctions list.
In another conflict zone, the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) claimed last Friday to have struck a Russian "ghost fleet" oil tanker, the Qendil, using drones in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Morocco. The SBU did not provide further details about the attack, including how they deployed a drone in the Mediterranean (2000 km from Ukraine) or the launch site. The SBU source stated that the cargo ship was empty at the time of the attack.
President Putin, in the middle of his annual marathon of question-and-answer sessions, promised that Russia would retaliate.
The "blockades," seizures, and attacks are, very clearly, acts of war (despite the United States' claim that America owns any of the oil produced by Venezuela – until all historical legal claims of the United States against Venezuela are satisfied). This oil tanker episode is a further step towards anarchy in American foreign policy.
These actions are primarily aimed at China (which holds significant stakes in Venezuela's oil industry) and Russia, which has long-standing relations with Venezuela and Cuba (now also subject to Trump's "blockade"). In addition, there is the shipment of $11 billion worth of weapons to Taiwan, including a substantial quantity of medium- and long-range missile systems, notably 82 HIMARS launchers equipped with ATACMS missiles, enabling Taipei's forces to strike targets across the Taiwan Strait.
This latest transfer has provoked anger in China.
This suggests that the National Strategy State Statement (NSS) The statement regarding China (which claims that Washington no longer considers China a "primary threat," but only an economic competitor) is simply meaningless rhetoric. China is treated as a hostile threat and will react accordingly.
China And Russia will "interpret" the Trump administration through its actions rather than its rhetoric on the NSS. And the signs clearly point to an escalation.
Let's put all of this in the context of the "leaks" from senior Trump administration officials, which Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard describes as "lies and propagandaShe asserts that the statements thatThe US intelligence community approves and supports the EU/NATO view that Russia's objective is to invade/conquer Europe (in order to "generate support" for their belligerent policies)." are lies propagated by what she calls «the warmongers of the deep state and their propaganda media… in order to undermine Trump's efforts to bring peace to Ukraine».
«The truth» written Gabbard on Twitter is quite different:
«That the US intelligence community has informed policymakers, including the Democratic HPSCI member quoted by Reuters, that US intelligence services believe Russia is seeking to avoid a larger war with NATO. It also believes that, as Russia has demonstrated in recent years, (…) does not have the capacity to invade and occupy Europe».
Gabbard tells us, therefore, that there is an open war at the top of the Trump administration. On one side, there is the CIA, the hawks and their European collaborators, and on the other, the analysts of Gabbard's intelligence services and a large part of the American electorate.
Where does Trump stand in all of this? Why is he positioning himself on the eve of a new conflict with China? Why would he do this when American economic structures are so fragile and China has demonstrated that it possesses the economic leverage to defend itself? Is the explanation simply that this is a diversion to distract from the release of new Epstein images?
Why did Trump also send Witkoff and Kushner to Berlin when the Europeans' intention to sabotage the negotiation process with Russia was evident from the outset? The two American "envoys" did not sign the European proposal. They remained silent, but they also did not express their disagreement, even when the security guarantees of Article 5 (similar to those of NATO) were mentioned.
Who provided the targeting data that (apparently) allowed Ukraine to attack the Qendil off the coast of North Africa, 2000 km from Ukraine? What conclusion was Putin supposed to draw from these two incidents? The Russians certainly drew their own conclusions.
And why involve Iran as well, by seizing the Bella 1 An Iranian tanker, ostensibly flying the Guyanese flag and heading towards Venezuela? Does this mark the beginning of a new cycle in the Iranian tanker war initially waged by Israel? Is it in the interest of Netanyahu and some Israeli voters to exacerbate the situation with Iran?
The question is worth asking, because Netanyahu is due to travel to Palm Beach, near Miami, on December 28, with the aim of having one or perhaps two meetings with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in the following days (although these meetings with Trump have not yet been confirmed at the time of writing).
It appears that neither Hamas nor the second phase in Gaza are primarily behind Netanyahu's intention to participate in the summit, but rather Iran.
Issues relating to Gaza and Hamas are therefore likely to take a back seat to the "new" narrative being developed by the Israeli Prime Minister's office: Iran will not be presented to Trump as rushing towards a "nuclear breakthrough," according to the old cliché.
This is the "old narrative." The new one, as the renowned Israeli commentator Anna Barsky writes in (in Hebrew) in Ma'ariv :
«The most immediate threat here: [more] than nuclear power itself… [East] the systematic [Iranian] reconstruction of the intermediate layer: the ballistic missile industry, its production lines, and the capacity to restore the operation of damaged air defense systems».
"Not because the nuclear issue has disappeared from the agenda"…but because missiles are the key that allows Iran to protect everything else—and also to attack. Without missiles and air defense shields, nuclear facilities are a vulnerable target. With a shield, however, they become a much more complex strategic problem.…And here is a point that often escapes public discourse: Iran does not "rehabilitate""not simply to return to what it was, but to return differently"».
"In other words, the "Missile restoration"And the "nuclear restoration"These are not two separate axes, but a single system – and this greatly concerns Israel. Missiles constitute a framework, this framework provides access to nuclear power, and nuclear power – even if rejected – remains the ultimate goal [from Iran]».
The message that Netanyahu will convey at Mar-a-Lago is this: "Israel will not allow Iran to rebuild a missile and defense shield that will close the skies over sensitive sites."
Trump might be more concerned with creating a new regional order without being drawn into a war with Iran whose outcome is uncertain. Netanyahu will nevertheless assert (as he has for over 25 years) that the "window" in which Iran can rebuild its defense shield is rapidly closing, and will likely gently remind the president that Trump was put in power not only to promote Israel's image, but also for a Realpolitik purpose aimed at extending Israel's real power in the region and its control over territory.
Merry Christmas, Donald!