Are US and Israel aligned on Iran war? Deciphering Trump’s post after gas field attacks
Are US and Israel aligned on Iran war? Deciphering Trump’s post after gas field attacks
Donald Trump, the U.S. president, made a passionate declaration following attacks on a key gas field shared by Iran and Qatar. The incident unfolded when Israel struck Iran’s South Pars, part of the globe’s largest natural gas reserve, prompting Tehran to retaliate by targeting an energy facility in Qatar. The conflict triggered a surge in energy costs and intensified Trump’s frustration. On his Truth Social platform, he criticized Iran, claiming unawareness of Israel’s plans. This raises questions about the U.S. and Israel’s unity in the broader war against Iran.
Trump’s statement that the U.S. “knew nothing about this particular attack” contradicts reports from Israeli media. The centrist Yedioth Ahronoth noted that the strike “was co-ordinated in advance with the United States and… agreed upon between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Trump.” A right-leaning outlet, Israel Hayom, added that “President Trump discussed the upcoming Israeli strike in Asaluyeh with leaders of three Persian Gulf states over the weekend.” While Trump’s claims are often subjective, this instance highlights potential discrepancies in his narrative.
“We are very much aligned on most or all of our goals regarding the Islamic regime in Iran, the IRGC, their ballistic and nuclear programmes,” said Alex Gandler, the Israeli embassy’s spokesperson in London. “We want the same thing.”
Trump’s language also reflects his tendency to frame events as emotional responses. He described Israel’s action as “violently lashing out” out of “anger,” a phrase typically reserved for Iran’s more aggressive actions. This suggests he may be implying that Israel’s decision was hasty, despite their long-standing alliance. Yet, the president’s use of all caps—“NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars Field”—reveals a conditional stance: Israel’s future strikes depend on Iran’s actions.
Israeli officials argue the U.S. and Israel remain synchronized in their objectives. However, differences in approach are evident. While the U.S. has focused on weakening Iran’s missile and drone capabilities, Israel has prioritized eliminating key Iranian leadership and disrupting state institutions. Recent strikes on Iranian oil facilities and covert operations against paramilitary Basij units reflect this strategy. Netanyahu, who has long advocated for Iran’s regime change, sees the South Pars attack as part of a broader campaign to erode the government’s grip on power.
Trump’s post also casts Iran in a negative light, accusing it of “unjustifiably and unfairly” retaliating without knowing Qatar’s involvement. This echoes his earlier annoyance with Israel’s strikes on Iranian oil depots. Yet, the ambiguity in his message—whether it’s a promise or a warning—leaves room for interpretation. For a leader accustomed to control, the post may signal both reassurance and subtle pressure on Netanyahu.
Ultimately, the U.S. and Israel’s strategies diverge in execution, even as their goals appear convergent. Trump’s late-night remarks, while scattered, underscore the complexities of their partnership and the shifting dynamics of the conflict. Whether these nuances reflect strategic disagreements or mere communication gaps remains unclear, but they reveal the tensions beneath the alliance’s surface.