The United States and Israel share the goal of defeating Iran militarily, but their visions for the country's future diverge sharply - a split that threatens to derail whatever fragile peace framework emerges from the current ceasefire.
David Ignatius has outlined the growing rift between Washington and Jerusalem over the Iran endgame, "Hvylya" reports.
Washington has tried to preserve Iran's economic infrastructure and avoided arming ethnic rebels "in ways that could fragment the country and create internal chaos," Ignatius wrote. The American approach assumes a post-war Iran that remains a functioning state - weakened, perhaps, but intact enough to negotiate and honor agreements.
Some Israeli strategists favor a radically different path. They advocate encouraging separatist movements among Kurds, Baluchis, Azerbaijanis, Khuzestani Arabs and other ethnic minorities inside Iran. This approach would effectively weaponize Iran's internal diversity against the regime - a strategy that carries the risk of uncontrollable fragmentation across the region.
The tension extends beyond theory. Israel wants to continue pounding Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, "despite growing American concern," according to Ignatius. Iran's parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has already suggested Tehran might walk away from peace talks unless Israel stops its strikes on Lebanon - a condition that puts Washington and Jerusalem on a direct collision course at the negotiating table.
Meanwhile, the diplomacy itself remains stalled in ambiguity. Trump announced that a 10-point Iranian proposal was "a workable basis on which to negotiate." Iran said it was "considering" a 15-point American peace plan. The two term sheets, Ignatius noted, "are radically different" - but a war-weary Trump had "long forgotten his March 6 demand for unconditional surrender."
Also read how "Hvylya" examined why the Middle East's deeper structural problems will outlast any regime change in Tehran.