Understanding why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pursues a broader, more aggressive strategy against Iran than his American partner requires engaging with the strategic logic underlying it — a logic that, whatever one thinks of its conclusions, is internally coherent and reflects a genuine reading of Israeli security realities. Netanyahu’s long game against Iran is not impulsive or ideological in a naive sense; it is a strategic approach built on specific assumptions about the nature of the Iranian threat and what is required to address it.
The core assumption is that the Iranian regime itself — not merely its nuclear program or its missile capabilities — is the fundamental threat. As long as the Islamic Republic survives, Netanyahu argues, it will continue to develop weapons, fund proxies, and work toward the elimination of Israel regardless of temporary setbacks. Nuclear containment, from this perspective, is a palliative measure rather than a solution. The solution requires removing the source of the threat, not merely its current most dangerous expression.
The long game strategy follows from this assumption. Comprehensive degradation of Iranian economic, political, and military capabilities — through strikes on energy infrastructure, assassinations of key figures, support for internal dissent, and sustained military pressure — is designed to weaken the regime to the point where its survival becomes genuinely uncertain. The South Pars strike was an element of this comprehensive approach.
US President Donald Trump’s objection to the strike reflected a different strategic logic. His assumption appears to be that the nuclear threat can be addressed without regime change, and that the costs of pursuing regime change — economic, diplomatic, and military — exceed the benefits. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard confirmed that the two governments have different objectives. Trump’s logic and Netanyahu’s logic lead to different wars.
Neither logic is obviously wrong. Both are defensible readings of a complex strategic situation. The problem is that they cannot both be executed simultaneously within a single coherent alliance strategy. Managing their coexistence — rather than pretending they don’t diverge — is the most honest and ultimately most effective approach to the US-Israel partnership’s central challenge.