Endgame in Iran: The strategic differences between the US and Israel — This is America

[0:07] This is America, where questions about whether the U.S. endgames in the war with Iran align with one of their closest allies, Israel. [0:15] And do those interests complement each other, or are they diverging? [0:20] I'll be back with more on that later, but first, here's Anna Burns-Francis in our Washington studio. [0:25] Thanks, Heidi. The war on Iran was, of course, launched by America and Israel. [0:31] But only one of them is sitting down at the table with Iran for talks. [0:34] Will America be able to negotiate a peace deal that also aligns with its allies' objectives? [0:41] In a moment, we'll be joined by Alan Fisher at the White House. [0:45] President Trump has offered a variety of different reasons for going into the war with Israel over the past six weeks. [0:52] So, too, has Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. [0:57] It's looking very good that we're going to make a deal with Iran, and it's going to be a good deal. [1:01] It's going to be a deal with no nuclear weapons. [1:03] To move the existential threats posed by the Ayatollah regime, you don't want to replace one Ayatollah with another. [1:10] You don't want to replace Hitler with Himmler. [1:11] They have to open up the strait of Trump. I mean, Harbus. [1:20] As time has progressed, so, too, has the list of objectives. [1:24] So, where do things lie now? [1:25] The objectives for the U.S. are that Iran never has nuclear weapons and must limit its enrichment of uranium. [1:33] It's also been focused on reopening the strait of Hormuz to help stabilise energy markets. [1:39] But Israel says it will continue fighting until it achieves regime change. [1:44] That's despite Donald Trump saying this has already been achieved. [1:48] Israel is also continuing its occupation deeper into Lebanese territory as it seeks to destroy Iran's regional allies. [1:57] All right, let's go to our chief U.S. correspondent, Alan Fisher, who joins us from the White House. [2:01] Alan, how have Donald Trump's objectives changed over time? [2:05] Well, clearly, they have to change because war dictates that what you set out to do sometimes isn't what you can actually achieve. [2:13] He will tick off a list of things that he believes he achieved when he announced that the war in Iran had started. [2:19] He believes they've destroyed the Navy. [2:21] He believes that they've destroyed their missile-making capability, [2:23] even though intelligence reports suggest that the Iranians still have half their weapons that they had before the war. [2:31] He will say that he achieved regime change, even though the Ayatollah has been replaced with a son, [2:37] who's considered even more extreme and less amenable than his father. [2:42] And then, of course, there is the question of regime change. [2:45] Donald Trump talked about how he hoped the people of Iran would seize the moment, [2:49] would rise up and change the government in Tehran. [2:53] That has not happened. [2:54] Now Donald Trump says he wants to get the strait of Hormuz open. [2:57] He says that was always the plan. [2:59] He said they knew that the strait of Hormuz would be closed by Iran and they had to take action. [3:05] But they kind of didn't. [3:06] They realized that the Iranians had control there and now they've imposed a blockade. [3:11] And he says that is hugely successful. [3:15] He's moved the goalposts as far as the target's concerned. [3:18] Now he wants to make sure there's a deal. [3:20] His big claim has always been, from the time he was campaigning for the first time as president, [3:25] was that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. [3:28] That has been the one consistent. [3:31] And he believes that with talks underway in Islamabad last week and the residue of those talks now, [3:38] he thinks he's on the verge of actually delivering that. [3:42] Alan Fisher joining us in the White House. [3:43] Thank you. [3:44] With diplomats and government leaders crisscrossing the region and talking Washington of a potential deal to end the war in Iran, [3:53] it's becoming clear that allies that started the war together may not want to end it in the same way. [4:00] Patty Culhane has that story. [4:01] When it comes to Israel's final objective, the head of Mossad could not have been more clear as to what he sees as the ultimate goal in the conflict with Iran. [4:12] We did not think that this mission would be completed immediately after the fighting ended. [4:19] We anticipated that our campaign would continue after the strikes on Tehran would end and prepared for this. [4:24] Our commitment will only be complete once this extremist regime is replaced. [4:29] This regime that seeks our destruction must pass from this world. [4:34] This is our mission. [4:35] At the same time, we're working to advance another goal to create the conditions for the Iranian people to be able to bring down the brutal, tyrannical regime [4:49] that's tyrannized it for almost 50 years. [4:52] For its part, the U.S. has highlighted its main goals for its war on Iran. [4:57] First, end the nuclear program, decimate Iran's military, stop that country's ability to make missiles [5:03] and its ability to fund affiliated groups around the region, finally reopened the Strait of Hormuz. [5:11] Talking exclusively to Al Jazeera, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio distanced Washington from the goal of new leadership in Iran. [5:19] Our objectives here from the very beginning had nothing to do with the leadership, but would we love to see a difference? [5:25] Do we think the people of Iran deserve better leadership than what they've gotten from the clerical regime? [5:30] 100%. [5:31] Would we be heartbroken if there was a change in leadership? [5:34] Absolutely not. [5:35] If there's something we could do to facilitate that, would we be interested in participating? [5:39] Of course. [5:40] But that was not the objective of this operation. [5:42] Now as the U.S. signals the possibility of another round of talks, questions remain over whether the two countries that started the war [5:50] are on the same page when it comes to ending it. [5:53] The American press has also been asking about Israel's influence on Washington's Iran policy. [6:04] Here's Heidi Jo Castro with more. [6:06] It wasn't long ago that Benjamin Netanyahu came to the White House and called Donald Trump the greatest friend Israel has ever had. [6:15] But Americans are increasingly not reciprocating those warm feelings toward Israel. [6:21] And we can see that in recent U.S. media coverage. [6:24] Let's go back to the days right after the killing of Iran's supreme leader. [6:27] In early March, the conservative Fox News described the joint U.S.-Israeli military operation in these terms. [6:35] Well, Israel picked up the intelligence along with the CIA, and Israel decides to act on the president's green light. [6:41] Pretty amazing. [6:42] It's pretty amazing what we have pioneered, what the Israelis have pulled off. [6:45] Fox News sounded impressed. [6:48] But by mid-March, U.S. newspapers were remarking on the growing distance between Israel and America's goals in Iran. [6:55] The New York Times ran an opinion piece titled, Trump and Netanyahu are no longer on the same page. [7:02] Noting, while Mr. Trump has said in recent days that America's military goals are nearly complete, [7:08] Israel seeks an end to the regime and to crush its regional influence. [7:12] In short, Mr. Trump wants to bend Iran. [7:15] Mr. Netanyahu seeks to break it. [7:18] Well, the U.S. and Iran reached a ceasefire on April 8th. [7:21] And the next day, Reuters wrote about Israel's continued invasion of Lebanon and said, [7:26] As U.S. and Iran talk truce, Israel digs in for a forever war. [7:31] Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported on plummeting public support for Israel in the United States. [7:37] It cited figures from Pew Research that just 37 percent of Americans viewed Israel favorably a few weeks into the Iran war, [7:46] compared with 60 percent who viewed it unfavorably. [7:49] For comparison, the numbers back in 2022 were flipped, with nearly 60 percent of Americans viewing Israel favorably. [7:57] But for the most dramatic shift, look at the conservative media star, Tucker Carlson. [8:03] He used to be pro-Israel. [8:04] Now he's called Trump a slave to Israel's interests. [8:08] Here he is interviewing a guest on his YouTube show a few days ago. [8:12] If Trump decides to pull out of Iran, if Iran doesn't go the way Bibi needs, then he always has Lebanon. [8:18] And if all of that doesn't go the way he needs, he could go back into Gaza. [8:24] So you're suggesting that he has to have a war? [8:26] At least until he gets elected next? [8:30] I think so. [8:31] A questioning of Benjamin Netanyahu's motives and a lot of fears expressed in the American press that Israel has put the U.S. into a corner. [8:41] Just where do America and Israel share or split on their war objectives then, to give us their perspective? [8:48] We're joined by Francis Ricciadone today, former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Egypt, [8:53] and Bernard Hudson, former CIA counterterrorism chief. [8:56] Thank you both for coming in. [8:57] Francis, Ambassador, I'll start with you. [8:59] Has America been boxed in by Israel? [9:03] You know, President Trump has, in fact, stood up to Mr. Netanyahu on several occasions in the past. [9:10] I think it's very clear, though, that it was Netanyahu's prompting and urging that must have tipped the balance in President Trump's decision to go to war at this time. [9:21] Bernard, it was always clear, I think, from the beginning that the objectives of each country were different. [9:27] There were some similarities, but they were not exactly the same. [9:30] How is that now influencing where the off-ramp is for either country? [9:35] So I think it has two different audiences. [9:37] One, how the Iranians perceive a united stand between the Israelis and the Americans. [9:43] And then, just as importantly, how American allies, especially those in the Gulf and in the region, [9:49] do they detect a difference or believe there's a long-term difference between what the Israelis want and what they're willing to do to achieve it, [9:55] and what the Americans are willing to do, and how much pressure the Americans may put on these Israelis if there are things some of these allies find objectionable. [10:04] Bernard raised an interesting point here, Ambassador. [10:07] Do you see Iran exploiting the split in objectives? [10:11] I wouldn't make too much about the split in objectives, because I think these are two leaders who can overcome them tactically. [10:25] I think there are strategic splits in objectives, but they're able to paper them over. [10:30] As to off-ramps, both of these leaders have the ability, having declared the war on their own, [10:37] these were wars of choice for objectives that each has announced, [10:42] each can declare that they have achieved their objectives, at least sufficiently, to take an off-ramp if one comes up. [10:52] I didn't hear the full announcement coming in, but President Trump is now saying we will have freedom of navigation in the Gulf, [11:00] and the Iranians have agreed not to have a nuclear weapon, and this is a breakthrough. [11:06] Well, that was the case, of course, as late as February 28th. [11:10] But if he declares that that now is an off-ramp, that's an off-ramp as far as the Americans are concerned. [11:16] I have no doubt that he can do what he needs to do with Mr. Netanyahu regarding papering over the very different Israeli interests. [11:26] Papering over, though, perhaps, Bernard suggests that there is a disconnect, [11:30] and they are not in lockstep with each other here, and that that will cause issues down the line. [11:34] My assessment, and I think this would probably be the assessment of the Iranians based on some of the propaganda efforts that they have undertaken, [11:42] I think, in some ways quite successfully, to try to message an American audience, [11:47] unlike previous wars the United States has been in, especially in the last 25 years, [11:51] this is an opponent who is able to access global media and message, in some ways, rather effectively, [12:00] their point of view, where the United States' public opinion is not nearly as supportive as the wars it is in Israel. [12:08] And so I would imagine, if you look at this as what the Iranian security services and what Iranian policy is going to pursue, [12:14] will be trying to set conditions or set a narrative that would make it hard for the Americans to restart hostilities, [12:22] they would probably assume that it would be relatively easier for the Israeli public to support a restart of hostilities if that was required. [12:30] Forgive me, are you suggesting that it is giving the appearance of more of a split in objectives than perhaps there really is behind closed doors? [12:38] So I think as lots of things happen in wars, this dynamic, you know, we're dealing in some cases more with mysteries than with secrets, [12:46] where the leaders and those pushing policy and developing it themselves don't know exactly what will happen. [12:54] I think it's fair to say that this is more of a popular war with the Israeli public than it is with the Americans, [13:02] and I think that will have a long-term effect on how Iran approaches this. [13:08] Speaking of popularity, Democratic Senator Mark Kelly has been highly critical of the Allies' failure to publicly communicate what the war is about. [13:18] Supporting a partner doesn't mean that we don't ask tough questions, and it doesn't mean that we always agree. [13:29] Our support for our Allies must always be about what makes us stronger and safer. [13:36] This is not business as usual, and it is not making us safer. [13:44] The United States and Israel are fighting a war against Iran without a clear strategy or goal. [13:54] Ambassador, Senator Kelly, they're raising a clear strategy or goal. [13:59] Those are not the two same things. [14:02] Which one is precedent here? [14:04] I don't think we have either a clear strategy or a standing, durable, clear goal, [14:13] other than what the most recent ones are that the President of the United States has declared. [14:20] And those, as of a few minutes ago, from what I saw, are reopening the straits through freedom of navigation [14:25] and an Iranian commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon. [14:31] Those are clear goals. [14:32] And if they are strategic goals, it sounds like they are quite achievable in an off-ramp. [14:40] The Israelis clearly would like more than that. [14:44] They would like to see regime change. [14:46] They would like to see a permanent end to war. [14:48] As to what the Iranians want, they must have climbed back far from their 10 points or 15 points [14:57] that they had put out there. [14:59] Perhaps those are out the window now. [15:01] Yeah. [15:01] Can we talk about regime change here? [15:03] Because Donald Trump, Bernard, has said that regime change has been achieved. [15:08] Is that your assessment? [15:11] I guess it depends on what you would call regime change. [15:14] What do we call regime change? [15:15] That is one of the issues, right? [15:16] Iran, uniquely in American opponents that it's faced, actually has an enduring system. [15:24] It is not dependent on a few key personalities to survive. [15:27] If you think about Iraq or, in some cases, the Libyan government, these were highly dependent [15:35] on a few individuals. [15:36] Iran is a system of organizations and interest groups. [15:39] So, yes, some of the people at the top have been removed through acts of war. [15:43] But the system itself probably is, in some strange way, more legitimized by this, at least [15:51] in the short term, by being able to demonstrate that they've taken on the most capable militaries [15:56] in the region and the world and survived it. [15:59] And especially when you factor in this is a regime, I think the ambassador has written [16:04] on this in the past, that has survived and presents itself as willing to embrace any cost [16:11] to live. [16:13] Ambassador, you're nodding. [16:14] And I wonder then where does that leave Israel's objective? [16:17] Because it has clearly stated it wants regime change. [16:20] And it would sound like, to the layman at least, that it's not the same kind of regime change [16:24] that America says has already happened. [16:27] If the president of the United States is satisfied that the regime in Iran has changed, then that [16:34] is regime change as far as the United States and Israel will have no choice because Israel [16:41] needed the United States to enable this war to happen. [16:45] I'm not talking about one-off strikes on a nuclear plant or on a presidential palace, but [16:51] to have a systematic destruction of Iran's military capabilities and so much of its civilian [16:58] infrastructure as well, it needed an enabling force. [17:03] And that force has been the United States with all its military might, but also its diplomatic [17:08] heft and its influence, at least heretofore, in what there is of international sense of rules [17:18] of the game and order. [17:19] Even that has been in disruption, let us say, and deliberately so on the part of the United States. [17:27] That's given the Israelis a lot of room to do what they're doing. [17:30] But if now the president of the United States declare the regime has changed for all of [17:34] our practical purposes, that we will not continue to enable the Israelis to attack and attack [17:41] and bomb and bomb until whatever regime change means for the Israelis. [17:46] Okay. [17:46] Can we talk about Israel's wider actions in the region? [17:49] Bernard, they've now agreed to a ceasefire with Lebanon. [17:52] How does that match with its objectives? [17:55] So, you know, clearly there's, for the Iranian point of view, that Lebanon being taken off [18:03] the area of active hostilities was a key issue for them. [18:06] I think it remains to be seen in the Israeli context what their long-term or medium-term [18:12] objectives are going to be in Lebanon. [18:14] It has historically been based on threats that the Israelis might perceive to some of their [18:19] northern settlements in their country. [18:21] I think in the short term, Israel is probably going to adhere to that ceasefire. [18:27] But Lebanon being as volatile as it is, and Israel has a long history of engagements there, [18:33] I think that might prove to be a, might be the shakiest part of the ceasefire. [18:38] Yeah. [18:39] Ambassador, we saw Donald Trump's comments that he had already spoken to Joseph Owen, Lebanon's [18:44] leader, and to Benjamin Netanyahu about the ceasefire. [18:48] How much influence will Donald Trump need to have to ensure that ceasefire endures? [18:55] Influence with the Israelis, you mean? [18:58] Well, I do. [18:59] Who do you mean? [19:00] Well, I mean also the government of Lebanon. [19:02] Remember, they are an important player here too. [19:04] From what one can tell from the outside, the government of Lebanon has been fed up with [19:11] Hezbollah as a state within a state for a very long time. [19:15] Large swaths of the Lebanese people, including no small number of the Shiite population, are [19:21] fed up with Hezbollah. [19:22] So there's a different dynamic there. [19:24] To the extent we can collaborate with the Israelis on this and the government of Lebanon and strengthen [19:35] the hand of the government of Lebanon against Hezbollah, I think the three of us can succeed, [19:42] the government of Lebanon, the United States, and the government of Israel, especially with [19:45] Iran now beaten back, presumably the Iranians, well hopefully, the Iranians' source of supply [19:54] and encouragement to the Hezbollah people in Lebanon will have dried up. [20:01] They certainly will have a harder time, certainly, likely will have a harder time using Iraq land [20:07] or airspace to get across. [20:10] Syria is no longer open to them in the way it was. [20:14] So I think there's a good probability that the Israelis will be on a track to defeat or neutralize [20:22] Hezbollah without having to kill every last one of them or destroy any more of southern [20:26] Lebanon. [20:27] When it comes to the wider conflict, Israel's prime minister says his efforts have always [20:31] been in lockstep with the White House. [20:35] Our American allies keep us constantly updated on the contacts with Iran. [20:40] Our objectives are aligned. [20:41] When those talks collapsed last weekend, what did we learn about where America and Israel [20:48] perhaps differed in coming to a negotiation with Iran? [20:51] I think one of the most important things to keep in mind is the American military relationship [20:56] with Israel. [20:57] This is the first time that a large-scale sustained military operation has been carried out towards [21:03] the same targets between these two countries. [21:05] The U.S. alliance with Israel is not like the U.S. participation in NATO, which is a separate [21:11] entity that we all participate in. [21:13] Israel's a very sovereign state. [21:16] Its national defense strategy has always been we must be able to do these things on our own [21:21] to the degree we can. [21:23] And for them, fighting a war like this was very novel, especially one that's gone on as [21:27] long as it has. [21:28] So I think the people who are involved in managing these relationships are themselves trying to figure [21:35] out what the policies and procedures and how they coordinate their activities will be, [21:39] because it is not like how the alliance in NATO operates at all. [21:43] Yeah. [21:43] Ambassador, during last weekend's talks, we know that J.D. Vance, the vice president, at [21:48] some point rang Benjamin Netanyahu. [21:50] Do you see Israel having had influence in those negotiations? [21:54] Israel is always hugely influential in American policy, whether tactically or in a longer strategic [22:01] approach. [22:03] And so I'm sure we listen very carefully to what Netanyahu had to say, and one hopes he's [22:08] listening carefully to us, too. [22:10] Yeah. [22:11] Bernard, will Israel be able to achieve its war objectives then without the support of [22:16] the U.S. from this point forward? [22:18] If there is a deal between Iran and the U.S., can Israel choose to unilaterally keep pushing? [22:24] So I think there's two parts to that great question. [22:26] One is, obviously, as the ambassador had said, Israel is highly dependent on American technology, [22:32] military kit, and political participation to sustain any type of military action on Iran. [22:38] Separately, what we don't know is, will there be any changes inside electoral politics in [22:45] Israel when this war goes into a pause or a sustained ceasefire? [22:49] The Prime Minister of Israel is not popular with every segment of his society, and we [22:56] don't know what the fallout of this war is going to be domestically in Israel. [23:00] Yeah. [23:01] Do you see the ceasefire being extended at this point, as we have heard comments? [23:05] I think it's in everyone's current interest to do so. [23:08] I think it would still be nice to hear from everyone who is involved in this, the three [23:13] parties, the U.S., Israel, and Iran. [23:16] I think it'll be interesting to hear what the Iranian delegation has to say in Pakistan, [23:21] and if what we're hearing about what they claim, what is claimed that their position is, is [23:25] indeed their sustained position. [23:27] Yeah. [23:28] Bernard, what will Israel do then, do you think, if we get to the end of the ceasefire period, [23:33] the current one, and the, Ambassador, sorry, I should ask you, if we get to the end of [23:37] the ceasefire period and there is no firm agreement, what do you see Israel doing or taking action [23:42] on? [23:42] I see them rather punting and coming back to us and talking about it. [23:50] I don't see them sustaining attacks on Iran when the president of the United, if and when [23:55] the president says, we have a ceasefire, he will not smile upon the Israelis or anyone else [24:01] jeopardizing it. [24:01] It's too important to American interests. [24:05] I cannot imagine that Netanyahu would defy the president of the United States on that. [24:09] I can imagine the Israelis continuing to hit southern Lebanon up to a point, but even [24:16] there, I have to believe Netanyahu will be prepared to declare victory in his terms, having achieved [24:25] all he has achieved both in Lebanon and in Iran. [24:28] Former U.S. Ambassador Francis Richardone, thank you very much for coming in. [24:32] And Bernard Hudson, former CIA counterterrorism chief, thank you for your thoughts as well. [24:38] Those questions around the U.S. and Israeli endgames in Iran have been fueling debate online. [24:43] Many Americans questioning who actually has the control and the relationship. [24:47] Alex Baird has this. [24:50] A vote in the Senate on Wednesday, exposing the tension on Capitol Hill. [24:54] Senator Bernie Sanders calling on his colleagues to block arms sales to what he calls the extremist [25:00] Israeli government. [25:02] The time is long overdue for the Senate and the House to have the courage to stand up to [25:11] AIPAC. [25:12] Yet another failure on the Senate floor. [25:15] The Senate backing Israel and its war aims. [25:17] U.S. CENTCOM chief, Admiral Brad Cooper, is on side. [25:22] And there's been no better teammate than Israel. [25:25] Questions around the U.S.-Israel relationship laid bare in this viral Saturday Night Live episode. [25:31] Should Israel have continued bombing Lebanon if there's a ceasefire? [25:37] Ultimately, that decision comes down to the man controlling our military, Benjamin Netanyahu. [25:42] That friction between U.S. and Israeli objectives highlighted by Netanyahu himself, who says his [25:49] country has its own goals, but in the same breath that our goals are identical. [25:56] Former U.S. Secretary of State under Obama, John Kerry, claiming Israel was the one who [26:01] actually wanted this war. [26:03] All other presidents had pushed back, except for Trump. [26:07] That question of who has control, powering the creative content machine online. [26:12] That narrative, that Israel is at the helm, is dominating the conversation online. [26:19] Iran expert, Teresa Parsi, adding fuel that the White House has adapted its war aims, such [26:25] as those around uranium, to match Israel's. [26:29] It was Israel's red line. [26:31] Trump shifted the goalpost to adopt the Israeli red line. [26:35] Former Trump ally, Tucker Carlson, claiming Trump is following Israel. [26:41] I feel sorry for him, as I do for all slaves. [26:44] But there are always two sides. [26:46] Analyst Aitan Fishburgr are framing this all differently, that the grievance right is [26:50] so consumed by hatred of Israel that they'll even throw their own president under the bus. [26:58] That's all from the team here in Washington, D.C., looking at whether the U.S. and Israel [27:02] truly aligned in their endgames for the war with Iran. [27:06] On This Is America, we're going to keep following the decisions that shape the U.S. and influence [27:12] the world. [27:13] For now, we'll hand back to Al Jazeera's global headquarters in Doha. [27:17] Thanks for joining us.