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 attack on Iran was not part of a grand strategy, but the result of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's two-decade campaign to persuade a US president to act. Professor Allison describes Netanyahu as a 'magician' who successfully 'mesmerized' President Trump into initiating what is effectively 'Bibi's war.'

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.

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 targeted Iranian supreme leader had issued two religious edicts (fatwas) against developing nuclear weapons. His assassination removed this key restraint and installed his more aggressive son, who has not issued similar edicts, thereby inadvertently accelerating the nuclear threat.

While a ground invasion is unlikely, a potential US military strategy involves a direct assassination attempt on Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. This high-risk decapitation strike aims to destabilize the regime's core, but the effect on the cohesion of its security forces is completely unpredictable.

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.

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.