As the war between the United States and Iran continues for 20 days, the relationship of President Donald Trump with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is closer than ever, but also more dangerous for international stability.
Despite their daily communications and public statements about “excellent cooperation,” American officials now warn that the strategic objectives of the two leaders do not coincide, and that this divergence could determine not only the end of the war but also the broader picture in the Middle East.
A president “strangely aggressive”
Senior officials in Washington describe Trump as the most “bullish”, that is, the most risk-taking and ready for escalation, figure in the administration regarding involvement in the war with Iran, reveals Axios.
In practice, this means that he shows more sympathy toward the broader, even more aggressive strategic goals of Netanyahu, than many other members of the White House.
American advisers acknowledge that this “chaos” pursued by Israel, as described by the phrase of an official “it loves chaos”, is not the same objective for the United States.
The United States appears more focused on specific, military outcomes, not on the broader dismantling or overthrow of the Iranian system.
Different strategic objectives
Although militarily the two countries move with some cooperation, the scope and depth of their operations differ significantly:
1) The United States focuses on military targets such as weakening Iran’s missile and nuclear program and neutralizing threats to its bases in the region.
2) Israel, on the other hand, seeks even deeper changes, high-level assassinations, targeting of leaders, and other actions that appear to pave the way for regime change in Tehran.
As a senior American official states to Axios: “Israel will try to neutralize the new leader of Iran, we not so much.”
This fundamental difference makes it clear that, despite the initial unity, the objectives may clash as the war continues.
Cracks are already visible
The most visible disagreement so far was when Israel bombed Iranian oil facilities, a move that the United States considered could cause greater instability in the global energy market and which the White House requested not to be repeated without explicit American approval.
For the United States, market stability and the prevention of a broader crisis are top priorities, for Israel, war and the weakening of Iran are primary objectives.
Behind the scenes of the alliance
Despite the differences, the Trump Netanyahu relationship was strengthened by previous conflicts, particularly after the 12-day war of June, when Trump openly praised Netanyahu and attempted to support his policy even at the level of legal protection and pardon.
This political and personal connection shows that, even when internal distances are created, the leadership relationship remains strong.
However, this unity faces political pressure, the resignation of Joe Kent, head of the National Counterterrorism Center, with the accusation that Israel “dragged” Trump into a war without real reason, publicly revealed concerns within American power regarding the decision-making process.
What “chaos” means for the future
The war planning of Israel, which as American officials note “does not hate chaos,” reflects a different perspective on war from that of the United States.
While for the United States battles must have clear military limits and objectives, for Israel war has deeper, more political extensions that may lead to more intense conflicts and long-term instability.
This difference in strategic tolerance and in the intended impact, one side wanting stability, the other expanding the conflict, is now the greatest point of friction in the American Israeli alliance.
The outcome of this “alliance of chaos” may determine not only the war, but also the future political balance in the Middle East.
Americans warn Trump: Leave Iran now
At the same time, the image that Donald Trump is trying to cultivate as a decisive leader in the Middle East is beginning to crack, as the base of his supporters shows fractures regarding the war in Iran.
The recent results of a poll commissioned by the Quincy Institute and the American Conservative and conducted by Ipsos from March 12 to March 14 show a worrying trend for him, 79% of voters who declare themselves supporters of Trump now want him to declare “victory” and end the war immediately.
Trump’s base and destabilization
Despite the fact that Trump’s voters still generally support the president, their desire for an immediate end to the war is overwhelming.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, states: “Trump risks losing significant parts of his base if he escalates the war with ground forces, while the conflict itself continues to raise gasoline prices.”
The fact that support for the war among Trump’s voters has decreased to 76%, from 84% in previous measurements, such as the Fox News survey after the first air strikes on February 28, is a clear indication that “absolute” support is no longer guaranteed.
In addition, 24% of voters who voted for Trump in previous elections now state that they oppose the war.
Young voters appear to be leading this change.
In the 18-29 age group, only 54% support the war, while 46% oppose it.
In the 30-49 group, 63% are in favor and 37% against, while support increases among ages 50-65+ (86%), likely due to the influence of Fox News, which has an older audience.
This clearly shows that Trump’s solid base coming from middle and older age groups is beginning to face cracks due to economic and military concerns.
The Quinnipiac poll shows that, in the general population, 53% of Americans oppose the war and only 40% support it, while among Republicans support remains high at 84%, but is clearly more fragile when analyzed in depth.
Economic risks and political hesitation
The escalation of the war is directly linked to concerns about the economy.
55% of Trump’s voters express concern about rising gasoline prices, while 58% oppose sending ground troops to Iran.
The economic dimension, combined with the potential loss of human lives, creates a growing conservative skepticism toward military intervention.
The war has not brought the expected results.
Although the United States and Israel have carried out more than 15.000 air strikes in Iran, the regime in Tehran continues to disrupt shipping, energy, air traffic, and daily life in neighboring countries through asymmetric attacks.
The assassination of top Iranian officials, such as Ali Larijani, powerful secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, has not led to submission or retreat.
Failure of political messaging
The Trump approach, which often relies on intense “advertising” rhetoric and exaggerated style, does not translate into results in the real world.
The pressure for “mission accomplished” from his base shows that even the most loyal Republicans have their limits.
The possibility of economic recession and the image of American soldiers returning in coffins to Dover Air Force Base exerts strong pressure on the president himself.
Saagar Enjeti, conservative host of the popular podcast Breaking Points, stated: “The Republican base is willing to trust Trump up to a point, but remains cautious about any escalation.
The results of this poll show that the wiser move would be to declare victory and end the war immediately.”
Internal fractures and strategic problems
Since the 12-day war in June, fractures in support for Trump have been evident.
Online disputes between conservative voices, such as Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and strong supporters of the war, such as Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro, show a deep division in the direction of policy.
The resignation of Joe Kent, Republican and veteran of the war in Iraq, constitutes the most significant blow to Trump’s image in the war.
Kent stated that he cannot support “sending the new generation to fight and die in a war that offers no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives.”
This move constitutes a strong symbol of how Trump’s military choices are beginning to alienate even his most loyal supporters.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών