Are US and Israel aligned on Iran war? Deciphering Trump’s post after gas field attacks
US-Israel Alignment in Iran Conflict? Trump’s Remarks After Gas Field Strikes
On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump responded to recent attacks on a shared natural gas field between Iran and Qatar with a sharp, assertive message. The strikes, carried out by Israel against Iran’s South Pars—part of the world’s largest gas reserve—triggered retaliatory actions from Tehran, targeting an energy facility in Qatar. The conflict, which caused a surge in energy prices, stirred Trump’s frustration, prompting him to issue a public rebuke on his Truth Social platform.
Contradictory Claims and Timing
Trump claimed the US was “unaware of this particular attack,” a statement that contrasts with Israeli media reports. The centrist publication Yedioth Ahronoth noted that the operation was “coordinated in advance with the United States,” while the right-leaning Israel Hayom stated Trump had “discussed the upcoming Israeli strike in Asaluyeh with leaders of three Persian Gulf states over the weekend.” These accounts challenge Trump’s assertion, raising questions about the accuracy of his claims.
“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, Israeli embassy spokesman, emphasizing shared objectives.
Despite this, Trump’s language suggests a critique of Israel’s actions. He described the strike as a “violent lashing out” driven by “anger,” a phrase typically reserved for Iran’s more erratic responses. This framing may imply Israel acted impulsively rather than strategically, potentially signaling a divergence in approaches between the US and its ally.
Strategic Differences and War Aims
While both nations target Iran’s capabilities, their focus appears distinct. The US has prioritized degrading Iran’s missile and drone infrastructure, conducting naval operations and striking coastal targets. Israel, meanwhile, has pursued a more aggressive campaign, targeting Iran’s leadership and state apparatus, including paramilitary Basij units that suppressed protests earlier this year.
“I strongly believe he wishes to find a means to credible declare a victory that does not ring empty,” remarked David Satterfield, a former US special envoy, highlighting Trump’s desire for a decisive outcome.
Israeli officials argue the South Pars attack fits into a broader strategy to weaken Iran’s authority. “The gas supply to citizens is being shut off, and that will bring the uprising closer,” stated an unnamed official in Yedioth Ahronoth. Yet, Trump’s post hints at a different timeline, with his use of all caps suggesting a conditional stance: “NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL… unless Iran unwisely decides to strike Qatar.”
For Trump, the emphasis is on avoiding unnecessary escalation, whereas Netanyahu seeks a more chaotic collapse of the Iranian regime. The tension between these perspectives underscores the complexity of their alliance, even as both nations share common goals in countering Iran’s influence.
