Tel aviv: As the war against Iran enters its third week, emerging signs suggest a growing rift between Washington and Tel Aviv regarding their respective visions of victory in the ongoing conflict. While both nations initially launched joint strikes driven by shared concerns over Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities, analysts indicate that their strategic goals are increasingly divergent.

According to Anadolu Agency, experts have observed that the United States and Israel are not aligned concerning the endgame of the conflict. Jack Clayton, a US foreign policy analyst, remarked, "Israel has been clear in wanting the regime of the Islamic Republic to fall, which has never recognized Israel's legitimacy and has been overt about its intentions to destroy the state." This stance contrasts with US President Donald Trump's approach, which he admitted might slightly differ from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's objectives.

Analysts highlight that one significant area of divergence is how Washington has defined and redefined its goals. Initially focused on curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, US policy has shifted multiple times, from advocating for regime change to dismantling Iran's nuclear program, and most recently, aiming to destroy its ballistic missile system. Clayton described this as an "anti-Powell Doctrine," lacking clear objectives and exit strategies, which has led to a scarcity of domestic and international support.

While US objectives seem fluid, Israel's position has been more consistent, emphasizing the collapse of Iran's political system, a goal that would necessitate deeper US involvement. Clayton noted, "Israel's priority is removing the regime altogether, and importantly, they cannot do that without the US - and most likely US boots on the ground too."

In contrast, Trump may be seeking a more limited outcome, drawing parallels to the US operation in Venezuela, where an attack was conducted but much of the government structure was left intact. However, ongoing strikes may hinder such a scenario by eliminating potential successors within Iran's leadership.

UK-based Israeli political analyst Ahron Bregman pointed out that differences are also emerging over the duration of the war. While Israel may prefer to extend the conflict to weaken Iran further, Trump might soon seek a resolution, especially with rising oil prices adding to the urgency for de-escalation.

Domestic politics and regional dynamics continue to shape the positions of both countries. In the US, rising casualties and economic concerns are leading to increased pressure within Congress, particularly with the upcoming midterm elections. Regional allies, especially Gulf states hosting US military assets, are also uneasy, facing Iranian missile and drone attacks, and are concerned about deeper involvement.

Energy markets have become another focal point, with rising oil prices and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz intensifying calls for de-escalation. The Gulf states may attempt to leverage energy infrastructure to influence Trump's decisions, though it remains unclear whether such efforts would succeed amid the impulsive nature of current US policy.

In Israel, domestic pressures are mounting as the country approaches legislative elections. Analysts suggest that Netanyahu will likely center his campaign around the Iran war to garner support, following criticism over failing to prevent a recent attack. With significant backing for the war among Jewish Israelis, some of Netanyahu's political rivals are pushing for even more aggressive actions against Iran.