One of the more striking aspects of the US-Israel campaign against Iran is the extent to which Israel’s strategy includes elements that the United States has not publicly endorsed — and in some cases has implicitly distanced itself from. While Washington has concentrated on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, missile systems, and naval assets, Israel has pursued a broader campaign that includes the assassination of Iranian military and political figures. These assassinations are a central element of Israel’s strategy to destabilize the Iranian government — but they fall outside the nuclear-containment framework that Trump has articulated as America’s war objective.
The divergence in tactics reflects the deeper divergence in goals that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard acknowledged before Congress. If America’s goal is preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, then degrading Iran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities is sufficient. If Israel’s goal is changing Iran’s government and reshaping the Middle East, then eliminating key Iranian leaders is an essential component of the strategy. The two approaches are not contradictory, but they are not identical.
The South Pars gas field strike brought a different element of this broader Israeli strategy into public view. The facility is an economic target, not a military one — its destruction was designed to damage Iran’s financial capacity and political stability, not its immediate military capabilities. Trump’s objection to the strike signaled that the US has limits on which categories of Iranian infrastructure it considers appropriate targets — limits that Israel’s campaign has now visibly exceeded.
Netanyahu confirmed acting alone on the South Pars strike and accepted a narrow limitation on further attacks, but maintained the broader principle of Israeli operational independence. The assassination campaign, the infrastructure strikes, and other elements of Israel’s comprehensive destabilization strategy were not subjects of the public commitment he made to Trump. Israel’s freedom to pursue those elements of its strategy appeared to remain intact.
Trump has backed away from regime-change rhetoric while Netanyahu has embraced it. The assassination campaign is one of the tools Israel is using to pursue that objective — and it is one that the US has neither fully endorsed nor publicly challenged. The gap between what America has sanctioned and what Israel is doing is real, consequential, and likely to generate more episodes like South Pars as the conflict continues.