The US-Iran framework deal was primarily motivated by the need to reopen the critical Strait of Hormuz for oil transport. This narrow economic aim took precedence over allies' broader security concerns, such as dismantling Iran's missile program, revealing a divergence in strategic priorities between the US and Israel.

The peace deal materialized only after President Trump became personally and seriously invested. His direct pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu was the critical factor in shifting Israel's position, suggesting that previous, less forceful American approaches missed opportunities to end the conflict sooner.

While the US and Israel launched a joint military campaign against Iran, subsequent peace negotiations were handled exclusively by the US. This reveals that despite their close alliance, America unilaterally dictates the terms for ending conflicts, leaving Israel with little choice but to comply.

The US needed a conflict that offered the 'appearance of victory' and could be quickly concluded. Israel's goals were more fundamental: ensuring it could never again face a surprise attack, implying a longer, more disruptive war. This misalignment created strategic tension between the allies.

Vance clarifies that while Israel is a key partner, their interests are not always aligned with the US. As the 'world's superpower,' the US operates as the 'senior partner,' sometimes needing 'frank conversations' with the 'junior partner' to ensure American objectives are met.

The US, under President Trump, is shifting focus to securing energy interests in its conflict with Iran, even redefining "regime change" to claim victory. This pragmatic pivot clashes with Israel's steadfast goal of completely weakening the Iranian regime, creating a significant strategic divergence and leaving Israeli security interests potentially unaddressed.

While a Trump administration might be tempted to cut a deal and withdraw from conflict with Iran, Israel's post-October 7th security doctrine has changed. Netanyahu's government will likely push hard for complete regime change, complicating any US efforts to de-escalate for political convenience.

The US, under Trump, would accept a more manageable 'regime alteration'—a change in leadership behavior without toppling the government. Israel, however, views the complete removal of the current Iranian regime as the only true measure of success in the conflict, creating divergent end goals.

Key US allies have incentives for America to enter a conflict with Iran but not win decisively. The ideal outcome for them is a weakened Iran and a distracted, overextended America that is more dependent on their cooperation. This subverts the simple narrative of a unified coalition, revealing a complex web of self-interest.