Fears of a US-Iran conflict disrupting oil flows are overstated. Any potential US military action would likely be designed to be 'surgical' to specifically avoid Iran's oil infrastructure, as the administration's priority is preventing economic shocks and energy price hikes ahead of elections.

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.

While currently aligned, the long-term interests of Israel and the US in a war with Iran could split. Israel seeks total elimination of Iran's missile threat, implying a prolonged conflict. The US, however, may have less tolerance for a drawn-out war due to concerns about its impact on global energy prices and the economy.

Israel's initial war plan was a targeted campaign against Iran's ballistic missile project. The conflict escalated into a broader, less attainable mission of regime change after the Trump administration joined, demonstrating how a powerful ally's involvement can lead to strategic "mission creep."

The administration aggressively talks about regime change, making promises to the Iranian opposition. However, the military actions and follow-up policies are not scaled to achieve this ambitious goal, creating a strategic disconnect that undermines the operation's credibility and clarity of purpose.

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.

The U.S. military is succeeding in tactical objectives, like damaging Iranian vessels. However, the overarching strategy is failing due to a lack of allied support and unclear long-term goals. Attacking oil infrastructure, for instance, signals an implicit abandonment of regime change as a viable outcome.

The main driver for US action against Iran is to stabilize the Gulf region to secure over $2 trillion in investment deals with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. These deals are the centerpiece of Trump's economic agenda, making the threat from Iran an existential economic one.

Despite a united military front against Iran, the US and Israel have divergent long-term goals. The Trump administration aims for a "Venezuela outcome"—a controlled regime ensuring oil flow—while Netanyahu's government is focused on total regime change, creating potential for a future strategic clash.