Are US and Israel aligned on Iran war? Deciphering Trump’s post after gas field attacks

Deciphering Trump’s Post: US and Israel’s Alignment on Iran War?

Following recent strikes on a shared gas field between Iran and Qatar, US President Donald Trump issued a strongly worded response. Israel’s attack on Iran’s South Pars—part of the world’s largest natural gas reserve—prompted retaliation against a Qatari energy facility. The assaults triggered a rise in energy costs and intensified Trump’s frustration. On his Truth Social platform, the president accused Iran of initiating the conflict and claimed unawareness of Israel’s strike intentions. This raises questions about the US-Israel partnership in the war and whether their strategic goals are converging or diverging.

Trump’s assertion that the US “knew nothing about this particular attack” contradicts Israeli media reports. Yedioth Ahronoth, a centrist outlet, noted that the strike was “coordinated in advance with the United States and… agreed upon between Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and US President Trump.” Israel Hayom, a right-leaning publication, added that Trump had “discussed the upcoming Israeli strike in [Iran’s coastal city of] Asaluyeh with leaders of three Persian Gulf states over the weekend.” The president’s statements, often erratic, leave room for doubt about their reliability.

“We are very much aligned on most or all of our goals regarding the Islamic regime in Iran, the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], their ballistic and nuclear programmes,” Alex Gandler, Israeli embassy spokesman, told the BBC.

Despite the ambiguity, Trump’s choice of language suggests a critical stance toward Israel’s actions. He described the strike as a “violent lashing out” driven by “anger,” a phrase typically reserved for Iran’s more unpredictable retaliation. This implies a possible critique of Israel’s decision-making, though the president’s use of capitals is sparse in this post, with only one instance: “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.”

Israeli officials, however, stress unity with the US. “The gas supply to citizens is being shut off, and that will bring the uprising closer,” a source told Yedioth Ahronoth’s Yossi Yehoshua. This aligns with Netanyahu’s long-standing objective to destabilize Iran’s regime, a goal shared by many Israelis who view the Islamic government as a threat to the Jewish state.

While both nations agree on countering Iran’s capabilities, their approaches differ. The US has prioritized degrading Iran’s missile and drone infrastructure, targeting its naval forces and Gulf coast installations. Israel, by contrast, has focused on eliminating key Iranian figures and disrupting state apparatuses, such as the Basij paramilitary units involved in recent protests. This divergence underscores a tension in their shared mission.

“I strongly believe he [Trump] wishes to find a means to credible declare a victory that does not ring empty,” said David Satterfield, a former US Middle East envoy. “He is not… looking for a quixotic regime change goal that was never on the cards realistically.”

Netanyahu, however, remains steadfast in his pursuit of regime collapse. Trump’s post hints at a desire to pause hostilities, yet it also echoes earlier irritation over Israel’s earlier strikes on Iranian oil facilities. Whether this reflects a strategic shift or a subtle rebuke of Netanyahu’s aggressive posture remains unclear, highlighting the complex dance between alliance and autonomy in the region.