President Donald Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a phone call last week that Israel should begin pulling its military forces out of Syria, and delivered the same message about southern Lebanon, U.S. and Israeli officials told Axios.
The call, which took place the day after Trump met Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Turkey, marks the clearest pressure yet from Washington on Jerusalem to reverse its military footprint in two neighboring countries where Israeli troops have remained well past the point the administration considers productive.
A U.S. official relayed Trump's blunt message to Netanyahu on Syria:
"They don't want you there. You should redeploy."
The same official said Trump delivered an equivalent message regarding Lebanon. The White House declined to comment on the reported conversation but did not dispute the account.
The phone call did not happen in a vacuum. U.S. officials have been pressing for a gradual Israeli withdrawal from territory Israel occupied in southern Syria after the Assad regime collapsed in late 2024. Those same officials believe Netanyahu has resisted making concessions on that front.
On Lebanon, the friction is even more concrete. Israel signed a framework agreement committing to withdraw from two "pilot zones" in southern Lebanon. Israeli forces have not yet redeployed from either one.
Israeli officials say they first want to verify those areas are free of Hezbollah weapons and infrastructure before pulling back. Lebanese officials counter that U.S. forces, not Israel, should make that determination. The standoff has left the framework agreement in limbo.
This latest confrontation fits a pattern. Trump has previously warned Israel it could find itself standing alone if certain escalation paths continued. That warning carried weight at the time, and the redeployment demand carries weight now.
Netanyahu's Prime Minister's Office confirmed the call took place but offered a carefully worded statement that sidestepped the withdrawal demand entirely:
"The Prime Minister, on his part, raised the need for security zones along Israel's borders."
That framing, "security zones", is the language Netanyahu's governing coalition uses to justify long-term Israeli control over parts of southern Syria and southern Lebanon. Coalition members continue to advocate for that position publicly.
Netanyahu also faces elections in roughly three months. That timeline matters. Withdrawing troops under American pressure, while members of his own coalition demand the opposite, puts Netanyahu in a political vise. U.S. officials appear to believe the electoral calendar is part of what has made Netanyahu resistant to concessions.
The dynamic is not new. U.S. intelligence has reportedly flagged concerns that Netanyahu may act to protect his domestic standing even at the expense of broader diplomatic objectives, a tension that has shadowed the relationship for months.
The sequence of events matters. Trump met Syria's new president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, at the NATO summit in Turkey. The next day, he called Netanyahu and told him to pull back from Syrian territory.
That ordering suggests the al-Sharaa meeting shaped or reinforced Trump's position. A U.S. official told Axios that Trump warned Netanyahu that Israel's military presence in Syria was fueling tensions and risking a broader conflict. The implication is direct: continued Israeli occupation of Syrian land is creating problems the administration does not want to manage.
What al-Sharaa said to Trump at the summit, and what commitments, if any, were exchanged, remain unclear. But the diplomatic choreography speaks for itself.
The broader U.S.-Israel relationship has been tested repeatedly in recent months. Trump himself acknowledged calling Netanyahu "crazy" as disagreements over Lebanon fighting and Iran negotiations mounted. That remark, once unthinkable between the two leaders, reflected a candor that has only sharpened since.
The Lebanon situation is arguably the more volatile of the two flashpoints. Israel signed a framework agreement and committed to withdrawing from two pilot zones. It has not done so.
Israeli officials cite legitimate security concerns. Hezbollah's weapons infrastructure in southern Lebanon is not a theoretical problem, it is the reason Israel entered the territory in the first place. Verifying that those weapons are gone before pulling troops back is a reasonable precaution on its face.
But the administration is pressing for implementation, and Lebanese officials are pushing back on Israel's insistence on controlling the verification process. The result is a three-way standoff in which the framework agreement exists on paper but not on the ground.
Trump's direct intervention, telling Netanyahu to withdraw, suggests the administration's patience with the delay has run out. The White House statement to Axios was notably warm in tone, praising the Trump-Netanyahu relationship and calling Trump the greatest friend Israel has ever had. But warm words paired with a blunt withdrawal demand send a clear signal: friendship does not mean a blank check.
Israeli political figures have lashed out at the Trump team before when they felt sidelined on major regional decisions. Whether this latest demand triggers a similar reaction remains to be seen.
Netanyahu's governing coalition complicates any path to withdrawal. Members of that coalition continue to advocate openly for long-term Israeli control over parts of southern Syria and southern Lebanon. For some, the post-Assad collapse was an opportunity to establish permanent buffer zones, not a temporary security measure.
That position puts Netanyahu between two forces: an American president who wants troops out, and coalition partners who want them to stay indefinitely. With elections approaching, Netanyahu has every political incentive to delay, hedge, and reframe.
His office's statement did exactly that. It did not address the withdrawal request. It pivoted to "security zones", language designed to justify continued presence rather than signal departure.
Trump, for his part, has shown a willingness to press Netanyahu directly on military restraint when he believes Israeli action risks broader instability. The redeployment demand is the latest and most concrete example.
Several critical details remain unknown. The exact date of the phone call has not been disclosed. The specific terms of the Israel-Lebanon framework agreement, beyond the two pilot zones, have not been made public. The precise boundaries of the territory Israel occupies in southern Syria are unclear from available reporting.
It is also unknown whether Netanyahu has responded to Trump's demand through any channel beyond his office's carefully hedged public statement. And the substance of Trump's meeting with al-Sharaa, what was discussed, what was offered, what was asked, remains unreported.
What is clear is the direction of travel. The administration wants Israeli forces to move. Netanyahu's coalition wants them to stay. And elections are three months away.
When your strongest ally tells you to leave, and your own coalition tells you to stay, the honest answer is that you're not making a military decision anymore. You're making a political one, and everyone involved knows it.
