“A common enemy, but not exactly the same agenda”: ​​facing Iran, differences between Israel and the United States

Unwavering allies, the United States and Israel nevertheless pursue divergent objectives in the face of Iran, their common enemy, underline experts, in the midst of a surge in tensions between Washington and Tehran.

For geopolitical analyst Michael Horowitz, “Israel and Trump have a common enemy, but not exactly the same agenda on Iran”, Israel pursuing an intransigent line while the United States would be open to negotiation.

After threatening to strike Iran in response to the bloody repression of the recent protest movement, US President Donald Trump now appears to want to lead negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program and discussions between the two countries are to take place this week in Oman, according to Iranian media.

Israel on the front line

But in the event of American strikes on Iran, Israel, approximately 2,000 km away, would be on the front line facing an Iranian response. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also reiterated that his country would not hesitate to react if Iran attacked in retaliation for American strikes.

“If Iran makes the grave mistake of attacking Israel, we will respond with force that Iran has never seen before,” he threatened recently. “Iran has repeatedly proven that its promises cannot be trusted,” he warned on Tuesday when receiving American envoy Steve Witkoff.

A “maximalist” objective

“Israel is pushing towards a lasting weakening, or even the fall of the Iranian regime, with the option of additional strikes if necessary,” underlines Michael Horowitz.

“For Netanyahu, the maximalist objective is clear: regime change or at least total dismantling of nuclear and missile capabilities,” he adds.

Donald Trump does not want to “take the risk of a long-term war,” notes Michael Horowitz.

The tactical differences between Israel and the American administration, underlines this researcher, “still create tensions and a certain uncertainty in Israel”, where public opinion seems divided in the face of a possible Israeli attack against Iran.

According to an opinion poll published Tuesday by the Israeli Democratic Institute (IDI), 50% of Israelis support a possible attack against Iran solely in retaliation and 44% say they are in favor of a military engagement in coordination with the United States.

Previous conflicts

Sworn enemies since the proclamation of the Islamic Republic in 1979, which does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, the two countries fought a 12-day war in 2025, triggered by an unprecedented attack by Israel on June 13 against Iranian military and nuclear installations as well as inhabited areas.

The United States joined their ally’s offensive by striking three Iranian nuclear sites on the night of June 21 to 22, before a ceasefire initiated by Donald Trump, which came into force on June 24. In Israel, this war left 30 dead and immense damage, notably to a hospital and national institutions.

Already in 2024, on the sidelines of the war in the Gaza Strip, Iran, an ally of the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, twice launched drone and missile attacks against Israel, which responded.

A possible agreement?

For Israeli reserve general Eitan Ben Eliahou, possible negotiations between the United States and Iran could lead to an agreement, but only under several conditions: the cessation of the Iranian military nuclear program and the manufacture of ballistic missiles, but also “an Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist”.

“Iran will issue a public statement announcing the abandonment of its intention to destroy Israel and a declaration that Iran will not attack Israel and, in return, as long as Iran respects the terms of the agreement, the United States and Israel will not attack it,” Eitan Ben Eliahou, of Iranian origin, said Tuesday on the Israeli news site YNet.

Mairav ​​Zonszein, expert from the International Crisis Group (ICG), also emphasizes that “there is a very clear difference between Netanyahu’s approach and that of Trump”. “Netanyahu has built his career on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program, and more broadly on the threat posed by Iran,” adds Mairav ​​Zonszein. “The main fault line is that Israel has always favored military action (…) while the Trump administration prefers diplomacy.”