US, Israel diverge on Iran endgame after strikes

New Straits Times

16 hours ago

WHEN they met on Monday, US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu basked in the glow of their triumph over Iran.
But the show of unity masked a divergence over their endgames in Iran, Gaza and the wider Middle East.
Both leaders have touted the success of last month's strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, declaring they had set back a programme they say is aimed at acquiring a nuclear bomb.
Yet, with intelligence assessments suggesting that Iran retains a hidden stockpile of enriched uranium and the technical capacity to rebuild, both Trump and Netanyahu know that their victory is more short-term than strategic, two diplomats say.
Where they diverge is on how to further pressure Iran, the diplomats say.
Trump says his priority is to lean on diplomacy, pursuing a limited objective of ensuring Iran never develops a nuclear weapon — a goal Teheran has always denied pursuing.
In contrast, Netanyahu wants to use more force, a source familiar with the Israeli leader's thinking said, compelling Teheran — to the point of government collapse if necessary — into fundamental concessions on quitting a nuclear enrichment programme seen by Israel as an existential threat.
The divide over Iran echoes the situation in the Gaza Strip.
Trump, eager to cast himself as a global peacemaker, is pushing for a new ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in the Palestinian territory, but the contours of any post-war deal remain undefined and the endgame uncertain.
Netanyahu, while publicly endorsing ceasefire talks, says he is committed to the total dismantling of Hamas, a strategic ally of Iran.
The Israeli prime minister wants the remaining Hamas leadership deported, possibly to Algeria — a demand Hamas flatly rejects. The gap between a temporary pause and a lasting resolution remains wide, two Middle East officials say.
On Iran, Netanyahu was displeased to see Washington revive nuclear talks with Teheran expected in Norway this week, the first diplomatic overture since the strikes, said the person familiar with his thinking.
He opposes any move that could give the Iranian authorities an economic and political lifeline.
Netanyahu wants nothing less than the Libya model for Iran, the source said. That means Iran fully dismantling its nuclear and missile facilities under strict oversight, and renouncing uranium enrichment on its soil even for civilian needs.
Israel is seeking not diplomacy but regime change, Western and regional officials have said.
And Netanyahu knows he needs at least a green light from the White House — if not direct backing — to carry out further operations if Teheran refuses to relinquish its nuclear ambitions, they say.
But Trump has different objectives, the diplomats say. After the June strikes, he sees an opportunity to press Iran to cut a deal and seize a grand diplomatic feat of restoring ties with Iran that has long eluded him.
On Monday, Trump said he would like to lift sanctions on Iran at some point.
And in an eye-catching post on X suggesting Teheran sees economic ties as a potential element in any deal, President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Monday that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei believed American investors can come to Iran with "no obstacles to their activities".
Iranian rulers, however, face two unpalatable options: renewed strikes if they do not surrender their nuclear ambitions and humiliation at home if they do.
That means they may try to make talks drag out, unwilling to fully quit their nuclear project and presenting a difficulty for a US president impatient for a deal and its economic benefits for the US, Western and regional officials say.
For Israel, the fallback option is clear, the person familiar with Netanyahu's thinking said: a policy of sustained containment through periodic strikes to prevent any nuclear resurgence.
Washington, meanwhile, is hedging its bets. While Israeli and US hawks still hope for regime change in Teheran, Trump appears unwilling to shoulder the huge military, political and economic costs that such a project would demand.
His repeated declarations that Iran's programme has been "obliterated" are less triumph than warning: don't ask for more — a signal that he's done enough and won't be drawn further in, says Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute think-tank in Washington.