A persistent and increasingly public divergence has emerged between the United States and Israel regarding the optimal strategy to address Iran’s nuclear program and its broader regional influence. Despite sharing the overarching goal of preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the two allies frequently find themselves at odds over the pace, methods, and acceptable risks involved in confronting the Islamic Republic.
This strategic disagreement is playing out against a backdrop of ongoing negotiations between the U.S. And Iran, mediated by Oman, in Geneva. , saw U.S. Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, representing the American side, while Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi led the Iranian delegation. The close cooperation between the two allies is crucial for these negotiations.
Both the United States and Israel share concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its expanding regional influence. However, their approaches to achieving these objectives differ significantly. These discrepancies have become more pronounced in the wake of widespread protests in Iran during January and February of 2026, which were met with forceful suppression by the Iranian government.
Shared Threat Perception, Divergent Priorities
Political analyst Reza Talebi noted that both the U.S. And Israel view Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, as well as its network of allied militias in the region, as key security threats. “There is no fundamental disagreement on this point,” Talebi stated. Both countries aim to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power and further expanding its influence in the Middle East.
The divergence arises in how to achieve this goal. For the United States, reaching a new agreement with Iran is a primary objective. Washington is pursuing this through a strategy of “maximum pressure,” combining economic sanctions with military deterrence. This approach aims to compel Iran back to the negotiating table and into compliance with international nuclear safeguards.
Israel, however, places considerably less emphasis on reaching an agreement with Tehran and fundamentally doubts its viability. The Israeli government questions not only the potential content of any agreement but also Iran’s long-term adherence to its terms. Israeli leaders have repeatedly expressed skepticism about the efficacy of diplomacy alone, particularly given Iran’s track record.
U.S. Strategy: Pressure as a Means of Negotiation
Security analyst Shukriya Bradost explained that U.S. Policy towards Iran is clearly geared towards achieving a new agreement. “To force Tehran to the negotiating table, Washington is resorting to massive economic sanctions, particularly on Iranian oil sales,” Bradost told DW. The goal is to systematically deplete the regime’s revenue sources and deprive it of economic maneuvering room. This policy seeks to induce Iran to either capitulate or, at least, make significant concessions without triggering a large-scale regional war.
Military assets play a secondary role in this strategy. The deployment of aircraft carriers to the Middle East and the emphasis on military options primarily serve as a deterrent. A potential “regime change,” or a large-scale military strike, is considered a last resort by Washington. The U.S. Is averse to prolonged wars and the occupation of Iran.
Israel’s Perspective: Pressure and Extensive Demands
Israel assesses the situation more urgently. Prime Minister Netanyahu recently reiterated Israel’s position, stating that any agreement with Iran must include not only the limitation of uranium enrichment but also the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and the removal of enriched uranium. He also expressed “skepticism” that the Iranians would uphold their end of any deal with President Trump.
While Washington favors a step-by-step increase in pressure, Israel is pushing for a swift decision. Netanyahu fears that a potential shift in future U.S. Administrations could strengthen Iran’s position once again. Israel is calling for a more decisive and direct U.S. Intervention, even military intervention if necessary.
Talebi added that the differences must also be understood within a broader context. “Netanyahu’s trips to Washington focus not only on Iran policy but also on safeguarding Israel’s international image.” According to Talebi, Israel’s international prestige has been affected in the U.S. And Europe, “which also reduces Washington’s willingness to act as unconditional support for a full Israeli military action against Iran.”
For the United States, regional and global stability are also a higher priority. Washington must consider not only Israel but also its European allies, the situation in energy markets, and the risk of regional escalation. From the American perspective, a limited agreement with Iran can buy time and prevent larger conflicts, even if it does not resolve all of Israel’s security concerns.
