America and Israel Have Different Endgames in Iran
Following the expiration of a two-week cease-fire announced by President Donald Trump, strategic divergences between the United States and Israel regarding Iran have become evident. While both nations oppose the Islamic Republic, their objectives differ fundamentally. Israel, driven by the belief that regime survival is Iran's primary motive, aims for leadership elimination and regime change. In contrast, the Trump administration assumes that credible military force can coerce Tehran into a nuclear deal, focusing on missile counts and enrichment levels rather than ideological transformation. This strategic incoherence undermines their joint campaign; Israel’s elimination of potential interlocutors restricts diplomatic avenues required for U.S. dealmaking, while U.S. openness to negotiations weakens the pressure necessary for Israel’s regime-change strategy. The article argues that Israel’s assessment of Iranian motives is more accurate, yet the conflicting approaches leave the campaign strategically adrift. Ultimately, this rift allows Iran to claim victory through mere survival, confirming its foundational narrative. The analysis highlights how operational coordination masks deep strategic disagreements, potentially prolonging the conflict without resolving the underlying tensions between Washington’s transactional approach and Jerusalem’s existential security concerns.
Wire timeline
America and Israel Have Different Endgames in Iran
Following the expiration of a two-week cease-fire announced by President Donald Trump, strategic divergences between the United States and Israel regarding Iran have become evident. While both nations oppose the Islamic Republic, their objectives differ fundamentally. Israel, driven by the belief that regime survival is Iran's primary motive, aims for leadership elimination and regime change. In contrast, the Trump administration assumes that credible military force can coerce Tehran into a nuclear deal, focusing on missile counts and enrichment levels rather than ideological transformation. This strategic incoherence undermines their joint campaign; Israel’s elimination of potential interlocutors restricts diplomatic avenues required for U.S. dealmaking, while U.S. openness to negotiations weakens the pressure necessary for Israel’s regime-change strategy. The article argues that Israel’s assessment of Iranian motives is more accurate, yet the conflicting approaches leave the campaign strategically adrift. Ultimately, this rift allows Iran to claim victory through mere survival, confirming its foundational narrative. The analysis highlights how operational coordination masks deep strategic disagreements, potentially prolonging the conflict without resolving the underlying tensions between Washington’s transactional approach and Jerusalem’s existential security concerns.
foreignaffairs