National Interest bombshell: The strategic chasm between US and Israel amid Iran war

For years, a conventional wisdom has prevailed in Washington that the US and Israel share a single, unified strategic interest in confronting Iran. Politicians from both major parties repeat this position almost as dogma, while think tanks and the defense establishment reinforce and implement it in practice. However, "conventional wisdom," especially regarding the Middle East, has often proven incorrect. According to an analysis by the American magazine The National Interest, this case is no exception.

What Israel wants

What the US pursues

The objectives of the United States, however, are more limited and simultaneously more complex. Washington seeks to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon that can be used operationally. At the same time, it wants to ensure the steady flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, avoid another long-term military involvement in the Middle East, and protect the global economy from a major energy crisis. Furthermore, American strategy aims to keep its focus on competition with China, which many consider the dominant geopolitical challenge of the 21st century. These goals are not exactly the same as those of Israel. There are points of convergence, but also significant differences, particularly on the question of how far a military conflict should go.

Asymmetry of interests

History offers significant examples. Before the Iraq War in 2003, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was strongly supported by circles linked to Israel's security priorities. At the time, it was argued that American power could reshape the region and create a more secure environment. In practice, however, this war led to decades of loss in resources and credibility for the United States, while Iran ultimately emerged strengthened after the removal of a key regional rival. Another important issue concerns the "ownership" of regional conflicts. For Israel, the Middle East is the primary field of strategic thought, from the Gulf states to Lebanon and Syria. For the United States, however, interests are global and extend from the South China Sea to Eastern Europe.

A military campaign against Iran that leads to a broader war could trigger severe consequences: a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a generalized conflict with Hezbollah, and a long-term US military presence in the Persian Gulf. The asymmetry of interests is evident. Israel, as a small state with a specific threat environment, can focus on one primary goal. The United States, as a global power with multiple commitments, does not have the same luxury. This does not mean Washington is indifferent to the Iranian nuclear program. A nuclear-armed Iran could, from the US perspective, destabilize the region.

However, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the full realization of Israel's strategic goals are not identical pursuits. The fundamental problem is that alliances require honest management of conflicting interests. Pretending that the strategic aims of the United States and Israel are fully aligned can, according to the magazine, lead to flawed decisions and strategic confusion.

www.bankingnews.gr