Washington (Somalia Today) – A growing rift has emerged between the United States and Israel over how and when to end their joint military campaign against Iran, as surging oil prices and diverging strategic goals test the alliance.
President Donald Trump recently suggested the war could soon be over, saying the U.S. military campaign is “pretty much” complete.
But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to press for maximalist goals, including regime change in Tehran.
Despite speaking almost daily, the two allies are pursuing increasingly different objectives in the air campaign, U.S. officials told The Wall Street Journal.
White House officials have expressed concern that Israel wants to prolong the war long after the United States ends its bombing operations.
Israeli officials, however, insist their campaign will end whenever U.S. involvement stops.
A major point of contention is Israel’s decision to broaden its target list to include Iran’s lucrative oil industry.
The United States warned Israel on Monday that the administration was “not happy” with attacks on Iranian energy facilities.
Washington explicitly asked Israel to stop strikes on energy infrastructure unless approved in advance, according to Axios.
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth acknowledged the divergence during a Pentagon briefing on Tuesday alongside General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
While calling Israel a good partner, Hegseth noted that “where they have different objectives, they have pursued them.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally, echoed the criticism and warned that Israeli strikes on fuel depots near Tehran could alienate the Iranian public.
Shifting US goals
The U.S. administration has visibly scaled back its stated ambitions since the war began.
While Trump initially called for regime change, he told reporters on Monday that the United States had already achieved its main military goals and was “way ahead of schedule.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has outlined a more limited set of objectives, focusing strictly on setting back Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes.
U.S. military planners have cautioned that air power alone has never succeeded in overthrowing a foreign government.
The Pentagon’s top policy official, Elbridge Colby, recently contrasted the U.S. and Israeli approaches before Congress.
Colby described U.S. strikes on Iran’s navy, drones, and missiles as “scoped and reasonable.”
By contrast, he said the targeted airstrike that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was part of an exclusive series of “Israeli operations.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasised that Washington sets its own timeline.
“The end of America’s involvement in this conflict will ultimately be determined by the commander in chief,” Leavitt said, adding Trump will stop when the threat of the Iranian regime is “completely demolished.”
Israel, however, is pushing for more time to finish the job.
“Our aspiration is to enable the Iranian people to cast off the yoke of tyranny,” Netanyahu said Tuesday. “There is no doubt that through the actions taken so far, we are breaking their bones.”
Economic fallout
The diverging approaches are worsening the economic damage.
Netanyahu has pushed for regime change for years, building on a 12-day war last year that severely degraded Iran’s military capabilities.
But the United States is increasingly focused on the war’s global economic fallout and on protecting its energy-rich Gulf state partners from retaliatory strikes.
Iran’s continued blockade of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz pushed global oil prices above $100 a barrel this week, alarming the White House.
Trump threatened a massive escalation to unblock the vital channel, which typically handles roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply, and suggested the U.S. Navy could escort tankers.
Warning of “Death, Fire, and Fury” if Iran does not relent, Trump’s threats highlight the risk that the U.S. could be dragged into a longer conflict than intended.
“Trump may be learning the oldest lesson of human conflicts: It is much easier to start a war than to end one,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group.
Vaez warned that halting the bombing without a diplomatic off-ramp could leave Iran with an incentive to maintain its blockade while Israel continues fighting.
Pressures diverge
The two leaders face vastly different domestic realities and polling numbers.
An early March poll by the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) showed 82 percent of Israelis support the war.
Netanyahu, who faces elections later this year, is likely relying heavily on the military campaign to boost his political standing.
Israel also faces an immediate existential threat: a ballistic missile fired from Iran can reach Israeli territory in just nine minutes.
Conversely, Tehran lacks the capability to strike the U.S. homeland. A May projection by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency estimated Iran would not be able to deploy the required 60 ocean-spanning missiles until 2035 at the earliest.
In the United States, public support for the war has fallen, with recent opinion polls indicating that only a minority of Americans back the conflict.
Facing criticism from Democrats and isolationist Republicans over his broken promise to end “forever wars”, Trump’s aides are privately urging him to find an exit strategy before high oil prices trigger a severe political backlash.
Despite the differences, diplomacy remains active. Special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s envoy for Iran, have been heavily involved in co-ordinating the endgame.
Witkoff is scheduled to travel to Israel next week in an effort to align the two nations’ military campaigns.
“Bibi’s dream and I think Israel’s dream for decades is a joint war to topple the Islamic Republic,” said Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser.
“But to rely on Trump for anything is always a dubious undertaking,” Freilich added.
