- ‘There is a lack of a clear objective, a lack of an exit strategy,’ says analyst Jack Clayton on US stance
- ‘Israelis would prefer to extend the conflict for as long as possible … Trump will soon seek a way to end this war, especially as oil prices continue to rise,’ says Israeli political analyst Ahron Bregman
ISTANBUL
As the war against Iran continues into its third week, signs are emerging of a widening gap between Washington and Tel Aviv over what victory in the conflict should look like.
While the US and Israel launched joint strikes with shared concerns over Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, analysts say their longer-term objectives are diverging.
“I believe that the US and Israel have been at odds about the end goal of the conflict,” said Jack Clayton, a US foreign policy analyst.
“Israel has been clear in wanting the regime of the Islamic Republic to fall, which has never recognized Israel’s legitimacy and been open about wanting to destroy the state.”
Last week, US President Donald Trump also confirmed the differences.
He told reporters his goals for ending the war “might be a little different” from those of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, declining to say how long he thought the war would last.
Analysts say one of the clearest points of divergence lies in how Washington has defined – and redefined – its goals.
Initially, US policy appeared focused on curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, following years of skepticism toward the 2015 nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The Feb. 28 US-Israeli strikes on Iran came shortly after a third round of indirect US-Iran nuclear talks in Geneva, where Trump had emphasized his preference for a diplomatic solution.
Clayton noted that the US president wanted a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear program as part of his desire to be seen as a “peacemaker and to win a Nobel Peace Prize.”
However, that approach shifted.
“Netanyahu had made the case to use military action in February to kill the ayatollah with reliable intelligence about his location, which changed Trump’s calculations,” he said.
But in announcing the strikes on Iran, Trump urged members of the Iranian opposition to topple the regime. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take,” he said.
Since then, Washington’s stated objectives have evolved repeatedly.
“There was regime change as a stated goal … then dismantling its nuclear program … to then saying that the purpose was to destroy the ballistic missile system,” Clayton said.
He described Trump’s approach as an “anti-Powell Doctrine” – a reference to the US military principle that emphasizes clear goals and defined exit strategies before engaging in war.
“There is a lack of a clear objective, lack of an exit strategy, and a lack of domestic and international support,” he added.
Diverging priorities
While US objectives appear fluid, analysts say Israel’s position has been more consistent.
Clayton said Netanyahu has long sought the collapse of Iran’s political system – a goal that would be difficult to achieve without deeper US involvement.
“Israel’s priority is removing the regime altogether, and importantly, they cannot do that without the US – and most likely US boots on the ground too,” he said.
By contrast, Trump may be aiming for a more limited outcome.
The US president has drawn parallels to Venezuela, where an American operation ousted President Nicolas Maduro but left much of the government structure intact under his deputy, Delcy Rodriguez.
“Venezuela was so incredible because we did the attack, and we kept government totally intact,” Trump told reporters during discussions around Iran. “And we have Delcy, who’s been very good.”
However, Trump has also acknowledged that ongoing strikes may be undermining such a scenario by eliminating potential successors within Iran’s leadership.
“Most of the people we had in mind are dead … We had some in mind from that group that is dead. And now we have another group. They may be dead also based on reports,” he said in the first days of the war.
UK-based Israeli political analyst Ahron Bregman said differences are also emerging over how long the war should continue.
“The Israelis would prefer to extend the conflict for as long as possible, potentially for weeks, to weaken the Iranians,” he said. “I believe Trump will soon seek a way to end this war, especially as oil prices continue to rise.”
Domestic and regional pressure
Analysts say domestic politics and regional dynamics are further shaping the positions of both countries.
In the US, Clayton pointed to growing pressure within Congress as casualties rise and economic concerns dominate political debate ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.
“There will be some Republicans worried about their seats in the November elections when there’s been an unpopular war and Americans are frustrated by the affordability crisis,” he said.
Regional allies are also increasingly uneasy.
Gulf states, some of which host US military assets, have already faced Iranian missile and drone attacks and are wary of deeper involvement in the conflict.
According to Clayton, this has created friction between Washington and its regional partners, who increasingly believe US policy prioritizes Israeli security over their own.
Energy markets have become another pressure point.
Rising oil prices and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have added urgency to calls for de-escalation.
“The Gulf states could try to use energy infrastructure to their advantage to try to prevent Trump from doing something erratic,” said Clayton. “But it is difficult to say whether he would be persuaded or have his mind set on leaving because there is so often so little plan in the first place, so he acts impulsively as a result.”
Israel, meanwhile, faces its own domestic pressures.
The country is scheduled to hold legislative elections before late October, and analysts say Netanyahu is likely to place the Iran war at the center of his campaign as he seeks to shore up support following criticism over failing to prevent the Oct. 7 attack.
Polls suggest around 90% backing for the war among Jewish Israelis, with some of Netanyahu’s main political rivals advocating even more aggressive action against Iran.
