The United States' and Israel's Differing Objectives for the War

From the first days of the United States-Israel war against Iran, cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump has talked about the "Venezuela model." By this, he means a repetition of the U.S. military operation that led to the arrest of then Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the installation of the Venezuelan Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, as the new leader of the country. Rodríguez quickly cut a deal with Trump in which Trump was provided with millions of barrels of Venezuelan oil, which was then sold. The proceeds of the oil sales are kept in a bank account in Qatar over which Trump has control. Trump obviously wanted to remove the top Iranian leadership and come to similar terms with their replacements. The key point here is that most of the existing government would be left in place. Most observers would think that this was never likely to happen, much less so now. However, there are indications that Trump has still not given up on the idea.

On the other hand, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has had a completely different goal for the war. Netanyahu favors what we might call the "Syrian Model" in which the regime is completely removed and replaced by one willing to accommodate Israel. This also appears unlikely to happen. But the result of the two leaders not being able to achieve their initial goals is that they are now working at counter purposes to each other. Trump wants to retain Iran's capacity to be a viable state with which he can do business. Netanyahu has no such goal, but simply wants to destroy the Iranian state. He doesn't care if that comes from a collapse of the regime, civil war, or a popular uprising. At some point, Trump and Netanyahu's disparate visions for the future of Iran will have to be reconciled.

The differing goals of Trump and Netanyahu briefly came up in a hearing yesterday on Capitol Hill. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified before the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. Radcliffe was asked about the leadership change in Iran and started his response by saying, "So, to be clear, the President's objectives with respect to Operation Epic Fury did not include regime change. That may be different from what Israel's objectives were." At the same hearing, Gabbard was asked if Israel's goals are aligned with those of the United States. Gabbard replied by saying, "The objectives that have been laid out by the President are different from the objectives that have been laid out by the Israeli government." When asked how the goals differ, Gabbard went on to say that "We can see through the operations that the Israeli government has been focused on disabling the Iranian leadership." In contrast, Gabbard said that Trump was focused on diminishing Iran's military capabilities.

The difference between the U.S. and Israeli goals came to the forefront with Israel's attack earlier this week on Iran's South Pars natural gas facility. Iran exports very little of this gas, but it is vitally important for domestic use. Both Trump and Netanyahu have periodically called on the Iranian people to rise up against the current regime. Taking steps that punish normal people, such as cutting off their natural gas, would seem contrary to that goal. However, Trump has never really seemed very dedicated to the idea of a popular uprising. He seems to much prefer identifying a member of the current government that he can anoint as leader. Trump has repeatedly spoken about his expectation that he will be involved in choosing Iran's next ruler. The South Pars bombing suggests that Netanyahu has also given up on an uprising and, instead, is turning to the "The Dahiya Doctrine" about which I have previously written.

Initially, there were reports that Israel had coordinated its action with the United States. For instance, the Times of Israel reported that:

Israel coordinated its Wednesday strikes on Iran’s South Pars natural gas field with the US, a US official and a second source familiar with the matter tell The Times of Israel.

The source familiar with the matter says the US was aware of the attack, but did not take part in it.

However, after the attack, Trump posted on Truth Social that the "United States knew nothing about this particular attack".

This was not the first time that Israel has struck Iranian energy facilities and provoked U.S. objections. Early in the war, Israel attacked oil storage depots throughout the country, creating dramatic fires in Tehran. The United States quickly expressed its annoyance to Israel.

Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was asked about the trend of Israel pursuing its own objectives over U.S. objectives. Hegseth's response was nonsensical, starting with him saying "We hold the cards. We have objectives," and then going on to say "We have allies pursuing objectives as well and the truth speaks for itself." This seems to acknowledge that Israel is pursuing its own agenda. It is remarkable that Hegseth didn't seem particularly concerned that Israel might be taking steps that undermine U.S. goals.

Yesterday, Trump was asked if he had spoken to Netanyahu about the attack on South Pars and he responded by saying, "Yeah I do. I did. I told him, 'don't do that.' And he won't do that." Whether or not Trump agreed to the attack initially, it is clear that he now understands the danger of the strike. Iran retaliated by attacking Qatar's liquid natural gas facility, which is the world's largest. Trump's portrayal of his conversation with Netanyahu may have sounded like second-grade-level discourse, but at least he is capable of understanding the dangers to the world economy of the destruction of petroleum facilities. The challenge for Trump is that Israel, in general, and Netanyahu, in particular, tend to follow the philosophy that "it is better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission." As such, we will likely see future Israeli attacks that Trump is forced to disavow.

The Washington Post published an article today that discussed the differing objectives of the U.S. and Israel. The article quoted a "senior administration official" as saying, "Israel is pursuing a scorched-earth campaign of regime change, which is not what our goal is. Bibi wants to wreck Iran’s economy and decimate its energy infrastructure. Trump wants to keep it intact."

There are clear and obvious dangers to two allies attempting to achieve differing objectives. First and foremost, the more progress Israel makes in destroying civilian infrastructure, the less likely the U.S. will be in reaching its goal of establishing a functioning state under more agreeable leadership. At some point, Trump will either have to make Netanyahu understand that his goal is no longer acceptable or appropriate Netanyahu's goal as his own. Iran cannot be both destroyed and saved.

The fact that the U.S. and Israel went to war with different goals in mind is just one more indication of how poorly planned this war has been. Trump is in purely reactionary mode now. He has no idea what to do next, but only responds to what has just happened. There doesn't appear to be any possible good outcome. Meanwhile, Iran is driving the agenda by closing the Strait of Hormuz. Regardless of what goals the U.S. and Israel would like to have, the only thing that really matters now is opening the strait because the world economy depends on it. The focus on the strait could provoke Trump to send in ground troops. If that happens, the mission of those troops could easily expand to include the establishment of a friendly government. Regime change, in other words. Ultimately, in that case, Trump would be achieving Netanyahu's goal.