Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Iran Conflict 2026
25MAY

Netanyahu backs Trump's 48hr ultimatum

3 min read
13:55UTC

Israel's prime minister publicly endorsed Trump's 48-hour ultimatum to destroy Iran's power grid, eliminating any remaining diplomatic distance between Washington and Jerusalem on the war's most escalatory threat.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Netanyahu's public endorsement makes any US ultimatum retraction a joint climbdown, raising the cost of restraint for both.

Netanyahu publicly endorsed Trump's 48-hour ultimatum to destroy Iran's power grid . "I think President Trump knows exactly what he's doing. And whatever we do, we do together," he stated — the most explicit public confirmation of joint US-Israeli war planning since operations began on 28 February.

The statement forecloses diplomatic distance that both governments had previously maintained. On 16 March, Trump denied knowledge of Israel's South Pars strike; Axios reported, citing US and Israeli officials, that the two leaders had coordinated it . Two days later, Netanyahu confirmed Trump had asked Israel to hold off on certain targets — an acknowledgement of coordination that still preserved the fiction of separate command structures . His endorsement of the power-grid threat abandons that fiction entirely. Both capitals are NOW publicly committed to an action that would cut electricity to approximately 88 million Iranians — hospitals, water treatment, cold-chain food storage, and what remains of civilian telecommunications.

For Tehran, the statement confirms what Iran has argued since 28 February: that this is a joint US-Israeli campaign, not an American operation with Israeli participation. That framing shapes Iran's retaliatory calculus. The Khatam al-Anbiya command already warned that strikes on Iranian power plants would trigger counter-strikes against energy, IT, and desalination infrastructure across the Gulf . Netanyahu's public embrace of the ultimatum gives Iran's leadership domestic justification for the broadest possible retaliation — and signals to Gulf States, already absorbing Iranian drone and missile strikes on their own energy facilities , , that Israel shares responsibility for whatever follows.

Both leaders have also narrowed their own exits. Trump has oscillated between "winding down" rhetoric and approving what Defence Secretary Hegseth called "the largest strike package yet" . Netanyahu, by publicly attaching himself to the power-grid threat before its Tuesday deadline, makes a climb-down costlier for either government. If the deadline passes without action, both absorb the credibility loss. If it does not, both own the consequences — and the counter-strike Iran has already promised.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

When one leader publicly says 'we're in this together, whatever happens,' it becomes harder for either side to change course quietly. Netanyahu's statement does not merely express support — it ties Israel's public position to Trump's ultimatum in a way that makes backing down diplomatically costly for both. If Trump walks back the threat, Israel looks abandoned. If Netanyahu later privately objects, he contradicts his own public declaration. Both parties have reduced their future flexibility.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

The endorsement serves a precise game-theoretic function: adding a second publicly committed actor increases the threat's credibility with Tehran. However, it simultaneously reduces Trump's negotiating flexibility — any retraction becomes a bilateral embarrassment rather than a unilateral US recalculation. Iran may read the public endorsement as evidence that Washington needed Israeli political cover, suggesting softer US resolve rather than harder commitment.

Root Causes

Netanyahu's domestic political situation provides structural motivation for the endorsement. Public alignment with a US position insulates him from right-wing critics if strikes are delayed or scaled back — he can argue Israel was committed but deferred to Washington. It also counters any Israeli domestic perception of passivity during an existential-stakes confrontation, serving an audience Netanyahu cannot speak to directly.

Escalation

The public endorsement removes a conventional de-escalation pathway. Normally a US ultimatum can be quietly allowed to lapse if Iran offers private face-saving gestures. Netanyahu's 'whatever we do, we do together' makes any such quiet lapse a visible joint US-Israeli climbdown, raising the political cost of restraint and narrowing the space for graduated de-escalation before the deadline passes.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    If Trump does not follow through after Netanyahu's public endorsement, both leaders face a credibility deficit that adversaries will test in subsequent confrontations across the region.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Consequence

    The joint public posture forecloses quiet face-saving diplomacy — any resolution now requires a public explanation acceptable to both Washington and Jerusalem simultaneously.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Meaning

    Netanyahu's operationally vague 'whatever we do, we do together' leaves room for Israel to provide intelligence or basing roles without direct strike participation.

    Immediate · Suggested
First Reported In

Update #45 · Ultimatum expires; Iran tolls Hormuz at $2m

Fox News· 23 Mar 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
Netanyahu backs Trump's 48hr ultimatum
Eliminates diplomatic separation between the US and Israel on the threat to destroy civilian power infrastructure serving approximately 88 million Iranians, and constrains both governments' ability to walk back the ultimatum independently.
Different Perspectives
Lloyd's of London
Lloyd's of London
The Joint War Committee left Hormuz war-risk premiums at $10-14 million per voyage on 25 May, declining to move on Brent's 5% fall. The JWC's protocol requires a UN Security Council resolution or bilateral government certification letter before de-listing, and neither has arrived: a verbal understanding does not satisfy the formal condition the reinsurance market's treaty terms require.
Gulf Arab producers
Gulf Arab producers
Saudi Arabia and UAE depend on Hormuz for their own crude exports; Aramco CEO Nasser has warned no oil market recovery arrives until 2027 if the blockade continues past mid-June. Monday's $98.96 Brent settlement shortens nothing for Gulf producers without a signed instrument and a Pentagon mine-clearance timeline that runs up to six months post-ceasefire.
Qatar
Qatar
Qatar holds $12bn of frozen Iranian assets at the centre of the sequencing dispute but cannot release them without explicit US Treasury authorisation, given the original freeze was a US instrument. As the asset-holding state, Qatar's leverage is real but passive: it is the escrow holder, not the decision-maker, and any resolution requires US Treasury sign-off that Trump has withheld.
Pakistan
Pakistan
With both Prime Minister Sharif and army chief Munir simultaneously in Beijing on 25 May, Pakistan has for the first time consolidated its civilian and military mediation tracks under China's roof. Munir's direct Tehran-to-Beijing flight signals that the security and financial threads of the sequencing problem are now being worked in parallel rather than sequentially.
China
China
Beijing hosted Pakistan's principal mediators and Iran's China envoy Ghalibaf simultaneously on 25 May while its banking regulator capped new state-bank lending to five sanctioned refiners. China is simultaneously the most credible third-party underwriter of the $12bn sequencing and the state whose institutions face live OFAC secondary-sanctions exposure if the deadlock persists through GL V's expiry.
United States
United States
Trump posted on 24 May that the blockade holds until a deal is certified and signed, ruling out the informal MOU structure both sides had been building. The 'certified, and signed' condition is the first operational bar Trump has attached in 87 days, but it arrived without an executive instrument, maintaining the gap between posted ultimatum and signed US policy.