The recent escalation in the Iran war—particularly Israel’s killing of Ali Larijani and the strike on Iran’s South Pars gas field—has prompted questions about whether Israel is acting independently of the United States. However, a closer look at the strategic context suggests that rather than going “rogue,” Israel’s actions are more likely aligned with broader, though not always publicly synchronised, US objectives.
Historically, the United States and Israel have maintained a closely coordinated strategic partnership, especially in matters involving Iran. Their joint airstrikes in June 2025 and again on February 28 reinforced the perception of a unified front. Yet, the developments that followed—Israel’s high-risk, high-impact decisions—have created the impression of divergence.
To understand the situation, it is essential to examine the differing but overlapping objectives of the three main actors. Iran is primarily focused on regime survival. The United States aims to neutralise Iran’s nuclear programme. Israel, meanwhile, views Iran as an existential threat and seeks to weaken it comprehensively—militarily, politically, and strategically—so that it can no longer pose any credible danger.
From Israel’s perspective, partial degradation of Iran’s capabilities is insufficient. Even after suffering leadership losses and damage to military assets, Iran continues to launch attacks and demonstrate advanced missile capabilities. This means Israel’s core objective—eliminating Iran as a long-term threat—remains unmet. As a result, Israel appears willing to prolong the conflict until that objective is achieved.
Actions such as the assassination of Ali Larijani—seen as a potential interlocutor for negotiations—and the targeting of the South Pars gas field, a critical component of Iran’s energy infrastructure, can be interpreted as moves to limit diplomatic off-ramps and increase pressure on Tehran. These are not merely tactical strikes but strategic decisions aimed at weakening Iran’s capacity to recover or negotiate from a position of strength.
The apparent disconnect arises from the United States’ public posture. Statements from US leadership suggesting surprise or disapproval of Israeli actions may indicate either a genuine communication gap or a deliberate diplomatic strategy. One plausible interpretation is a “good cop, bad cop” dynamic, where the US maintains a measured, publicly cautious stance while Israel applies maximum pressure on the ground.
Past instances also suggest that such divergences are often more about optics than substance. Public disagreements or expressions of surprise can serve diplomatic purposes, allowing the US to manage international perception while continuing to support Israel’s broader strategic goals behind the scenes.
Therefore, while Israel’s recent actions may appear unilateral or aggressive, they do not necessarily indicate a breakdown in coordination. Instead, they reflect a difference in tactical urgency and risk tolerance, with Israel pursuing immediate and decisive outcomes, and the US balancing military objectives with global diplomatic considerations.
In this context, it is unlikely that Israel has truly “gone rogue.” Rather, the situation points to a complex alignment where both countries remain strategically connected, even if their methods and messaging occasionally diverge.
