After threatening on Saturday Iran with destroying their power plants if they did not open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours, Donald Trump chose on Monday to pause his ultimatum to apparently leave room for the negotiations with Tehran. The announcement came shortly before the stock markets opened in USA and caught the Israeli Government off guard. “Much of the initiative was developed discreetly and few in Israel “they were fully aware of the details,” wrote the newspaper ‘Haaretz’. Benjamin Netanyahu It took him five hours to react publicly to give his implicit support to the initiative, which does not necessarily mean that he was confident in its chances of success or that he was fully informed. Just one day before, in fact, the Israeli Army stated that it plans fight “several more weeks” in Iran to be able to get their goals.
As the weeks pass since the start of the military aggression on Tehran, it becomes clear that the objectives of Israel and the US They don’t necessarily match. And even less the conditions that their leaders face. Trump is under enormous pressure from its internal and external allies to shelve the war as soon as possible, which is very unpopular among the Americans just over half a year before the legislative elections and with onerous costs for their Arab partners in the Persian Gulf. A very different scenario than that faced by Netanyahu, who has been waiting for this opportunity for more than 30 years and has the overwhelming support of his population to destroy the Iranian “existential threat”.
These differences were openly expressed last week on Capitol Hill. “The objectives declared by the president are different from the objectives stated by the Israeli Government,” said the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, during an appearance in Congress. Gabbard explained that Tel Aviv has focused on “dismantle” the Iranian regimewhile Washington has prioritized the destruction of its ballistic missile arsenal and its navy. Also the head of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, He insinuated that the aspirations of both differ, no matter how much they publicly strive to convey the opposite. “To be clear, the president’s goals in the Operation Epic Fury they did not include the regime change. “That might be different from what Israel was looking for,” Ratcliffe said.
Different times
The truth is that Trump did champion regime change during the first days of the military assault, urging the Iranians to take control of the country. But as the regime showed its solidity despite having lost many of its leaders, the music changed. Quite the opposite of what Israel has done. This same Sunday, Netanyahu reiterated in an interview with Fox News that his country aspires to “completely” destroy the iranian nuclear program and his missile manufacturing capacitybut also to “create the conditions for the Iranian people to overthrow this tyranny.”
Regardless of the fate of the ayatollahs, it is clear that Israel has little rush to end the warwhile the US seeks with growing interest exit ramps. “Trump seems to be interested in applying the Venezuelan model, based on aligning himself with a pragmatic member of the regime and accessing its vast reserves of oil and other resources,” writes Eric Lob, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “On the other hand, Netanyahu seems to be betting on ‘mowing the grass’ methodwhich weakens Iran and prolongs the conflict”. ‘Mowing the grass’ is what Israelis call the degradation of their enemies’ military capabilities.
Uncoordinated attacks
The disparity of interests It has been evident on several occasions in these three long weeks of war. Some of Israel’s attacks, designed to expand the conflict, have been publicly disapproved from Washington. It happened after the explosion of a thirty fuel tanks in Tehran on March 8, which caused acid rain on the Iranian capital, and more recently after the bombing of the South Pars gas field, the largest in the world. Trump himself said then that he “knew nothing” about the attack.
This same dynamic could be repeated if there ends up being direct negotiations with Iran, something that, for the moment, Tehran denies. Israel has always opposed agreements negotiated with its archenemy. So much so that he ended up convincing Trump during his first term to blow up the pact reached by Barack Obama in 2015 to restrict the Iranian nuclear program. “Let’s put it this way: Any agreement acceptable to Israel will far exceed Iran’s red lines and, conversely, any agreement that the (Trump) Administration reaches with Iran will not be acceptable to Israel. It is a circle that cannot be squared,” Danny Citrinowicz, an influential former Israeli military intelligence official, has written in X.
Subscribe to continue reading
