US-Israel Alliance: Tactical Alignment, Strategic Divergence in the Iran Conflict

US-Israel Alliance: Tactical Alignment, Strategic Divergence in the Iran Conflict

Key Takeaways:

• Unprecedented frequency of calls between Trump and Netanyahu since the outbreak of the Iran conflict.
• Potential divergence in ultimate goals and risk tolerance between the US and Israel.
• Trump is seen as a strong proponent of action against Iran, sharing more maximalist objectives with Netanyahu than some of his advisors.
• Military and intelligence cooperation between the two nations is robust, but there are differing priorities regarding strike targets.
• Israel focuses on high-profile assassinations and regime change efforts, while the US primarily aims to neutralize Iran's nuclear and missile programs.
• Differences were evident in the initial strikes, with Israel targeting leadership and the US focusing on military infrastructure.
• The sole clear point of friction involved Israel bombing Iranian oil storage facilities, impacting global market stability.
• The personal relationship between Trump and Netanyahu is exceptionally strong, bolstered by US support for Netanyahu's legal matters.
• The assassination of a senior Iranian official was met with satisfaction by Trump, while Israel signals further actions.
• The resignation of a US official exposed concerns about the administration acting "on behalf of Israel."
• The US asserts that it will be the ultimate arbiter of the war's objectives.

Since the commencement of the Iran war, the communication lines between the White House and the Israeli Prime Minister's office have been unusually active, with U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu engaging in near-daily phone calls. President Trump conveyed to Axios, a U.S. digital news outlet, that their collaboration has been "very smooth." However, as this conflict has now persisted for 19 days, U.S. officials are increasingly cognizant of potential divergences in ultimate objectives and risk tolerance between the two allied nations.

Why This Matters:

Multiple U.S. officials have characterized President Trump as the most hawkish and supportive voice within the White House for initiating hostilities against Iran. He appears to align more closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu's maximalist objectives than many of his own advisors. Both Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran are acutely aware that any fissure within the U.S.-Israeli alliance could significantly influence the outcome of this war. Three Trump advisors confided to Axios that they believe President Trump may desire an end to large-scale combat operations sooner than Prime Minister Netanyahu. Nevertheless, the current relationship between Trump and Netanyahu seems tighter than ever, and the Strait of Hormuz crisis makes a U.S. troop withdrawal in the short term unlikely.

Overall Posture: Military Synergy, Differing Objectives

The military and intelligence apparatuses of the United States and Israel are operating in close coordination. However, their focus on specific targets varies. The U.S. is almost exclusively concentrated on military objectives. In contrast, Israel is concurrently engaged in high-profile assassinations and other actions aimed at paving the way for regime change. Senior U.S. officials indicate that regime change, from President Trump's perspective, is a secondary benefit. His plan is to conclude the war once core military objectives – the destruction of Iran's missile program, nuclear program, navy, and its support for proxy forces – have been achieved. "Israel has different priorities, and we are aware of that," stated one White House official. Another official candidly remarked, "Israel will try to get rid of the new Iranian leadership. Their interest in that is far greater than ours."

A Typical Divergence: Initial Strikes Differed

As a prime example, during the initial wave of strikes, Israel's focus was on decapitating Iran's leadership, whereas the U.S. prioritized striking missile and drone bases in the region. Subsequently, Israel has continued to conduct operations on a broader scale than the U.S. The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad even attempted to instigate a ground invasion of Iran by Iranian Kurds from northern Iraq, a move that has not materialized to date.

The Only Clear Friction Point: Israeli Bombing of Iranian Oil Facilities

More than two weeks into the conflict, the sole apparent point of friction between the U.S. and Israel emerged when Israel bombed Iranian oil storage tanks. Officials state that stabilizing global oil markets is a higher priority for the U.S. than for Israel. The White House has reportedly asked Israel not to strike oil targets again without explicit approval from Washington. "Israel doesn't mind chaos. We do. We want stability. Netanyahu? Not so much, especially on Iran. They hate the Iranian government much more than we do," remarked one White House official.

Behind the Scenes: Trump-Netanyahu Relationship at an All-Time High

Beyond these specific disagreements, Trump and Netanyahu appear to be in lockstep on almost all other fronts. Their relationship was significantly cemented by a 12-day war the previous June, which Trump viewed as a "huge success" and for which he gave Netanyahu high praise. Since then, Trump has also launched a sustained lobbying effort to secure a pardon for Netanyahu and end his corruption trial. Despite skepticism from some White House officials in recent months regarding the Israeli prime minister and his intentions, the alignment between Trump and Netanyahu is arguably unprecedented.

Details: Assassination of Larijani and Trump's Satisfaction

Some analysts questioned Israel's decision to assassinate Iran's security chief, Ali Larijani, on Tuesday, arguing that he might have been more amenable to a peace deal with the U.S. than other senior Iranian figures. However, Trump expressed satisfaction with Larijani's assassination. Netanyahu, for his part, made it clear that more actions are to follow. He even showed U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, a "checklist" he carried with him, detailing Iranian leaders that Israel had already assassinated or planned to assassinate soon.

Political Fallout: Resignation Exposes "Working for Israel" Controversy

The resignation of Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, on Tuesday, who accused Israel of luring Trump into an unnecessary war, highlighted lingering political issues within the Trump administration. "We realize it looks like we're working for Israel. We're not, but we understand how it looks, and it doesn't do us any favors," a senior Trump advisor told Axios prior to Kent's resignation.

Looking Ahead: Who Calls the Shots?

President Trump has acknowledged that Israel's objectives might be "slightly different" from his own. "You know, they're there, and we're a long way away," he told reporters last Sunday. European officials state that Secretary of State Antony Blinken (Note: The original text mentioned 'Rubio', a Senator. Assuming Blinken as Secretary of State for context) has admitted to differences in U.S.-Israeli objectives in multiple calls with his European counterparts. At a press conference last week, when asked if Iran would have to satisfy both U.S. and Israeli demands for the war to end, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated, "The United States will be the one to call the shots." "Our objectives are our objectives. We'll determine the rhythm of when they're met," he said.