U.S. and Israel Clash Over Iran War Endgame Strategy

Three weeks after the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran under Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026, the two allies find themselves aligned on the battlefield but increasingly at odds over what the fighting is supposed to achieve [1][2]. The campaign, which opened with a decapitation strike that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, has escalated into a multi-front regional conflict—and the question of what comes next has exposed a fault line at the center of the alliance [3].

Two Allies, Two Endgames

When the strikes began, Washington and Jerusalem spoke in unison. President Trump told Iranians to seize their "only chance" for generations to "take over your government." Prime Minister Netanyahu implored them to "cast off the yoke of this murderous regime" [4]. But within days, those parallel messages diverged into incompatible strategies.

Israel's position is unambiguous: complete regime change, potentially culminating in a government led by Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the last shah [4]. Netanyahu stated on March 19 that meaningful regime change will require a "ground component" and that the Iranian people must "rise to the moment" [5]. Israeli ministers have privately acknowledged this could take a year or longer [6].

The White House has defined a narrower set of objectives: eliminating Iran's missile threat, destroying its naval capacity, disrupting missile and drone production, and ending its path to a nuclear weapon [1]. When pressed on whether regime change is among those aims, officials have stopped short. "It's a good thing for the United States to want freedom for the Iranian people, and ultimately, we hope that freedom rests in their hands," a spokesperson said [1].

The gap is not semantic. A senior Trump administration official told Axios: "Israel doesn't hate the chaos. We do. We want stability. Netanyahu? Not so much, especially in Iran. They hate the Iranian government a lot more than we do" [7].

The Nuclear Question That Started It All

The urgency behind the campaign traces to intelligence assessments that had, by mid-2025, reduced Iran's nuclear breakout timeline to near-zero. A May 2025 Defense Intelligence Agency assessment concluded Iran would need "probably less than one week" to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) [8]. The Institute for Science and International Security went further, estimating Iran could produce its first 25 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium at the Fordow facility in as little as two to three days, with enough material for nine weapons within three weeks [9].

These assessments drove the initial June 2025 campaign—the "12-Day War"—in which Israel struck the Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow nuclear facilities [10]. The United States joined with "Operation Midnight Hammer" on June 22, deploying 125 aircraft including B-2 bombers carrying 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators against Fordow's underground enrichment halls [11]. The facility, built deep inside a mountain, was considered impervious to anything in Israel's arsenal—a key reason the U.S. GBU-57, a weapon Washington had long declined to transfer to Israel, required direct American participation [11].

A critical caveat separates breakout time from actual weapons capability: nuclear experts have consistently noted that producing HEU is not the same as building a deliverable warhead, a process estimated to take additional months or years [8]. This distinction has fueled debate over whether the military campaign's timeline was driven by genuine urgency or strategic opportunity.

The Weapons Gap and the Dependency It Created

Israel's inability to independently destroy Fordow illustrates a broader pattern of operational dependency. The GBU-57—the only munition capable of penetrating Fordow's hardened mountain bunker—has never been exported to any country [11]. Israel's largest bunker-buster, the GBU-28, can penetrate roughly 20 feet of concrete; Fordow sits under approximately 260 feet of rock [10].

This single weapons limitation shaped the entire architecture of the conflict. Israel could strike surface-level facilities unilaterally, as it did in the opening hours of the 12-Day War. But for the deepest targets—the ones that mattered most for permanently setting back Iran's nuclear program—Jerusalem required Washington's direct military participation.

The arrangement granted the United States significant leverage, at least initially. But that leverage has eroded as Israel has expanded its target list beyond the nuclear infrastructure both sides agreed upon. On March 18, Israel struck Iran's South Pars natural gas field—the world's largest—without prior U.S. coordination [5]. Trump subsequently asked Israel to hold off on further energy infrastructure attacks, and Netanyahu publicly confirmed compliance: "Israel acted alone against Asaluyeh. President Trump asked us to hold off on future attacks, and we're holding off" [5].

Oil, Hormuz, and the Economic Fallout

Source: FRED / U.S. Energy Information Administration

Data as of Mar 16, 2026CSV

The South Pars strike crystallized the economic dimension of the disagreement. Iran had already threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz—through which roughly 20% of the world's oil and natural gas transits—and had begun mining and naval operations to disrupt tanker traffic [12]. Brent crude surpassed $100 per barrel on March 8 for the first time in four years, peaking at $126 before stabilizing [12]. WTI crude, which traded below $60 in late December 2025, crossed $95 by mid-March [13].

The disruption extends beyond oil. European natural gas prices nearly doubled in the first week of March, from €30/MWh to above €60/MWh [12]. Commercial shipping has largely abandoned the Bab al-Mandab Strait and Suez Canal route in favor of the Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks to transit times and compounding supply disruptions across Africa, Asia, and Europe [14]. The economic impact has been described by multiple analysts as the most severe energy market disruption since the 1970s oil crisis [12].

For the Trump administration, which came to office promising lower energy prices, this trajectory is politically untenable. For Israel, whose economy is smaller and more insulated from global oil markets, the calculus is different: energy price spikes are an acceptable cost of regime change in Tehran.

U.S. Forces in the Crossfire

The conflict has placed tens of thousands of American military personnel directly in harm's way. Between 40,000 and 50,000 U.S. service members are stationed across roughly 10 countries in the region, with Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar hosting approximately 10,000 as CENTCOM's forward headquarters [15][16]. Fewer than 2,000 remain in Iraq, primarily at Erbil Air Base, while approximately 2,000 are deployed in Syria [15].

Iran has directly targeted these installations. Tehran reported striking Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, Al Dhafra Air Base in the UAE, and the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain [3]. As of mid-March, 13 U.S. soldiers had been killed, along with 21 personnel in Gulf state facilities [17].

The targeting of U.S. bases has created what defense analysts describe as an automatic escalation mechanism: each Iranian strike on American forces generates domestic political pressure for expanded U.S. retaliation, pulling Washington deeper into a conflict whose ultimate objectives it has not fully endorsed.

The Proxy Front: Hezbollah, Houthis, and Regional Expansion

Iran's proxy network has activated unevenly. Hezbollah entered the conflict on March 2, launching its first missile and drone attacks on northern Israel since November 2024 [18]. The resulting Israeli counterstrikes have killed at least 850 people in Lebanon and displaced more than one million—roughly 20% of the country's population [19].

Source: GDELT Project

Data as of Mar 20, 2026CSV

The Houthis present a more ambiguous picture. Having ceased attacks on Red Sea shipping following the Israel-Hamas ceasefire in October 2025, Houthi leaders warned operations would resume if the U.S. or Israel attacked Iran [14]. As of late March, they have not fully re-entered the conflict, appearing to follow what analysts describe as Iran's "gradual deployment strategy"—a phased escalation calibrated to the severity of the threat to Iran's core military capabilities [14].

Iraqi militias near U.S. bases represent a third vector. ACLED data shows a marked increase in militia activity across Iraq and Syria coinciding with the February 28 strikes, though large-scale coordinated attacks on U.S. positions have thus far been limited compared to the 2023-2024 escalation cycle [20].

Civilian Toll and the Question of Sustainability

The human cost is mounting on multiple sides. The Iranian NGO HRANA documented 3,114 deaths in Iran by March 17, including 1,354 civilians, 1,138 military personnel, and 622 unclassified [17]. By March 6, over 4,000 civilian buildings had been damaged by U.S.-Israeli strikes, including schools, hospitals, and cultural heritage sites [17]. In Israel, 18 people have been killed by Iranian missile fire, including three Palestinian women in the West Bank struck by missiles on March 18 [21][6].

The asymmetry in casualties—over 3,000 dead in Iran versus 18 in Israel—echoes patterns from Israel's previous conflicts, including the 2006 Lebanon war and the Gaza campaigns. In those precedents, lopsided casualty ratios eventually eroded international support and created domestic political pressure to accept ceasefires short of stated objectives.

Historical Precedents: When Israel Went Its Own Way

The current rift has precedent. In June 1981, Israel destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor using U.S.-supplied F-15s and F-16s without Washington's authorization [22]. The Reagan administration initially suspended combat aircraft deliveries in response—a penalty that lasted only months before deliveries resumed [22]. The strike, condemned internationally at the time, was later recast as a nonproliferation milestone, establishing the precedent that unilateral Israeli military action against nuclear threats could succeed without lasting diplomatic cost [23].

During the 1991 Gulf War, Israel accepted U.S. pressure to absorb Iraqi Scud missile attacks without retaliation—a restraint rewarded with Patriot missile batteries and deepened strategic coordination. In the 2015 JCPOA debate, Netanyahu took the extraordinary step of addressing the U.S. Congress to oppose the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal, straining relations but ultimately failing to block the agreement [23].

The pattern suggests that Israel has historically absorbed short-term friction from defying U.S. preferences, with minimal long-term consequences to the bilateral relationship. This history informs Netanyahu's apparent willingness to push beyond the boundaries Washington has attempted to set in the current conflict.

The JCPOA's Shadow

Supporters of the military campaign point to the JCPOA's record as evidence that diplomacy alone cannot constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran's enrichment levels climbed from the 3.67% permitted under the agreement to 60%—far beyond civilian requirements—after the U.S. withdrew in 2018 [8]. The IAEA documented persistent Iranian obstruction of inspectors and undeclared nuclear material at multiple sites [9]. Iran's proxy networks expanded throughout the JCPOA period, with Hezbollah's arsenal growing to an estimated 150,000-plus rockets and the Houthis developing capabilities sufficient to threaten Red Sea shipping [14].

Critics counter that the JCPOA, while imperfect, maintained meaningful constraints: Iran's breakout time under the agreement was estimated at 12 months, compared to the near-zero timeline that existed by 2025 [8]. The agreement's collapse, they argue, resulted from the U.S. withdrawal rather than any inherent flaw in the diplomatic framework.

What Happens Next

The strategic divergence between Washington and Jerusalem shows no sign of narrowing. Israel's stated objective—regime change—requires either an internal Iranian uprising or a sustained military campaign that the United States has shown no appetite to support indefinitely. The White House's more limited goals—neutralizing Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities—may be achievable through continued airstrikes but would leave the regime intact, an outcome Netanyahu has explicitly rejected.

Meanwhile, the economic costs continue to accumulate. Every week the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, every missile exchange between Iran and Gulf state energy infrastructure, and every Hezbollah barrage into northern Israel reinforces the argument that this conflict cannot remain contained at its current intensity.

The 1981 Osirak precedent, which both Israeli and American strategists frequently invoke, contained a feature the current situation lacks: it was over in 80 seconds [22]. Three weeks into Operation Epic Fury, with oil above $90 and casualties mounting across six countries, the question is no longer whether the U.S. and Israel can fight together, but whether they can agree on when and how to stop.