Trump, Iran, and Israel: Can America Prioritize Its Own Interests to End the War?
The provocative headline “To End the Iran War, Trump Must Divorce Israel” has circulated in recent opinion pieces, most notably from outlets like The American Conservative. The argument is straightforward: U.S. and Israeli objectives toward Iran have diverged sharply, and as long as Washington defers to Jerusalem, the conflict risks becoming an open-ended commitment that serves Israeli security goals more than core American ones. Proponents claim President Trump should use U.S. leverage — military aid, diplomatic cover, and munitions — to restrain Israeli actions and open a realistic path to de-escalation.
As of late March 2026, the war that erupted on February 28 continues with no clear end in sight. That day, joint U.S.-Israeli airstrikes hit Iranian nuclear facilities, ballistic missile sites, military infrastructure, and leadership targets across the country. The strikes killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other senior officials, triggering Iranian retaliation with missile and drone barrages against Israel, U.S. bases in the Gulf, and energy targets in allied states. Hezbollah escalated attacks from Lebanon, broadening the theater of conflict.
The Current State of the Conflict
U.S. and Israeli forces have conducted hundreds to thousands of strikes on Iranian targets, significantly degrading missile production and launch capabilities. Israel has vowed to “escalate and expand” operations, including deeper strikes into Tehran. The U.S. has provided critical support — including intelligence and munitions — but Trump has repeatedly paused threats to target Iranian energy and power infrastructure. The latest extension pushes any such strikes to April 6, citing ongoing diplomatic efforts.
Iran has responded with waves of ballistic missiles, some causing damage in Israel, and has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Casualties on all sides number in the thousands, with significant civilian losses reported in Iran. Millions have been displaced, oil markets have been volatile, and global economic ripples continue. Iran’s new leadership under Mojtaba Khamenei has shown resilience, while hardline elements within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps appear ascendant.
Diplomacy remains stalled but active behind the scenes. Trump has described talks as “productive” and sent a 15-point proposal to Iran via Pakistani intermediaries. Key U.S. demands reportedly include full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, handover of enriched uranium stockpiles, unrestricted IAEA access, limits on ballistic missiles, cessation of support for proxy groups, and secure freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has rejected the plan as maximalist, countering with its own conditions: an immediate halt to all U.S. and Israeli attacks, mechanisms to prevent future conflict, war reparations, and recognition of its authority over the Strait.
The Case for “Divorcing” Israel
Critics argue that Israel’s maximalist aims — deeper degradation of Iranian military capabilities, prevention of any reconstitution of threats, and even regime disruption — clash with Trump’s apparent preference for a quick, deal-oriented exit. Israeli officials have expressed concern that Trump might unilaterally declare victory or push a short ceasefire to lock in gains. From this perspective, unlimited U.S. backing allows Israel to prolong operations beyond what serves American interests in avoiding a wider quagmire, higher oil prices, or entanglement in endless regional proxy wars.
Restraint advocates point to historical precedents where the U.S. pressured allies when interests diverged and emphasize “America First” priorities: secure energy routes, prevent Iranian nuclear breakout without permanent U.S. military commitment, and minimize costs to American lives and treasure.
Counterarguments: Shared Threats and Limits of Unilateralism
This framing, however, oversimplifies a complex adversarial relationship with Iran that long predates the current escalation. Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran has been a consistent bipartisan U.S. goal for decades, driven by risks of regional proliferation (potentially to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Egypt), emboldened proxies, and threats to global energy security — interests that extend well beyond Israel.
Iran’s actions — advancing uranium enrichment beyond civilian needs, rejecting verifiable limits, arming and directing proxy militias, and attacking international shipping — have repeatedly escalated tensions. The joint U.S.-Israeli strikes followed failed diplomacy and Iranian progress on sensitive programs. While divergences exist (over pace, targeting of energy sites, or endgame scope), coordination has leveraged complementary strengths: Israeli intelligence and proximity paired with U.S. long-range strike capabilities.
A full “divorce” from Israel would carry its own risks. It could erode U.S. credibility with partners facing similar threats from Iran’s axis, reduce intelligence sharing on terrorism, and potentially embolden Tehran to rebuild faster once pressure eases. Past U.S. restraint of allies (such as during the 1956 Suez Crisis) succeeded in narrow cases but does not guarantee better outcomes in a theater where Iranian ideology and capabilities pose direct challenges to broader stability.
Trump’s approach — combining maximum pressure through strikes with pauses for negotiations — reflects a deal-making calculus: use demonstrated force to improve leverage rather than commit to endless war or ground operations (which he has ruled out for now). Reports indicate tensions between Trump and Netanyahu over timelines and scope, with the U.S. more focused on verifiable nuclear rollback and de-escalation.
Realism Over Rhetoric
Wars rarely end through slogans. They conclude when costs outweigh benefits or when parties reach a tolerable settlement. Iran appears to be betting on U.S. domestic war-weariness and political pressures. Trump’s pauses and proposal signal interest in an off-ramp short of full regime change. Israel, facing more immediate existential risks from proximity and explicit threats, naturally prioritizes longer-term degradation of capabilities.
Prioritizing American interests requires clear, limited objectives: sufficiently degrade Iran’s nuclear and long-range missile programs to reset the threat clock, restore secure shipping lanes, avoid deeper entanglement or ground wars, and prevent proliferation cascades. This may involve continued coordination with Israel where interests align, or firm pressure where they diverge. Blanket calls to “divorce” an ally ignore the agency of Iranian decision-making and the structural challenges of containing a revolutionary regime that has opposed U.S. presence in the region for decades.
Trump has demonstrated willingness to challenge allies on trade, NATO spending, and other fronts when it suits U.S. goals. The real test lies in extracting concrete, verifiable concessions from Iran without drifting into permanent commitment. De-escalation ultimately demands compromise from Tehran on its nuclear ambitions and proxy activities — not merely unilateral U.S. restraint toward partners. As strikes continue and deadlines approach, the coming weeks will reveal whether leverage produces a durable reset or whether the conflict settles into another cycle of “mowing the grass.”
About The Author
