Are US and Israel aligned on Iran war? Deciphering Trump’s post after gas field attacks
Deciphering Trump’s Post: US and Israel’s Stance on Iran War
Following recent strikes on a significant gas field jointly held by Iran and Qatar, US President Donald Trump expressed strong criticism on his Truth Social platform. The attacks, which targeted Iran’s South Pars—part of the world’s largest natural gas reserve—were met with a retaliatory strike by Tehran on a Qatari energy facility. The incident not only caused a surge in global energy costs but also intensified Trump’s frustration. His post suggested a lack of prior knowledge about the Israeli strike, raising questions about the extent of US-Israeli coordination in the conflict.
Contradictions in Trump’s Claims
Trump’s assertion that the US “knew nothing about this particular attack” contradicts reports from Israeli media. The centrist newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth noted that the strike “was co-ordinated in advance with the United States and… agreed upon between Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and US President Trump.” A more assertive right-wing outlet, Israel Hayom, added that “President Trump discussed the upcoming Israeli strike in [Iran’s coastal city of] Asaluyeh with leaders of three Persian Gulf states over the weekend.” These claims challenge Trump’s narrative, though verifying the truth remains complex.
“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,” stated Alex Gandler, the Israeli embassy’s spokesperson in London. “We want the same thing.”
Strategic Divergences and Shared Objectives
While Israeli officials insist on close alignment with US goals, subtle hints of differing priorities emerge. The South Pars attack is framed by Israeli sources as part of a broader strategy to weaken Iran’s governance. “The gas supply to citizens is being shut off, and that will bring the uprising closer,” one official told Yedioth Ahronoth’s Yossi Yehoshua. Prime Minister Netanyahu has long advocated for regime change in Tehran, a stance shared by many Israelis who view the Islamic government as a threat to their state.
In contrast, the US has focused on eroding Iran’s military capabilities, including its missile and drone infrastructure. Recent operations have targeted Iran’s naval forces and coastal facilities, while Israel has prioritized assassinations of key Iranian figures and disruptions to state authority. Despite these tactical differences, both nations remain united in their broader objectives against Iran.
Trump’s post also included a notable use of all caps to emphasize his message: “NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars Field,” he wrote, “unless Iran unwisely decides to attack a very innocent, in this case Qatar.” This phrasing suggests that Trump may be signaling a conditional approach, potentially limiting Israel’s actions unless Iran acts first. However, the president’s tone remains firm, accusing Iran of retaliating “unjustifiably and unfairly” without full awareness of Qatar’s innocence.
Analysts note that Trump’s rhetoric often blends personal frustration with strategic intent. His emphasis on Israel’s “violent lashing out” implies a critique of the strike’s timing or execution, framing it as an emotional response rather than a calculated operation. This characterization could hint at tensions within the US-Israel alliance, even as both nations share a common enemy in Tehran.
