From Joining Forces to Acting Separately, U.S.-Israel Divergence is Dragging America into a Dilemma!

Trump announced that the ceasefire with Iran has now lasted over 48 hours, yet a diplomatic crisis caused by deep strategic differences between the US and Israel is quietly taking shape. Israel, exploiting a loophole in the agreement framework, has launched the largest-scale military strike to date against Lebanon, pushing the fragile ceasefire to the brink of collapse and drawing the US, which was attempting to disengage, back into the vortex of conflict.

On April 8, Israeli forces carried out simultaneous airstrikes on more than 100 targets in Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, and southern Lebanon within 10 minutes. According to Xinhua News, at least 254 people were killed and 1,165 injured. Iran immediately warned that the agreement was endangered, while the leaders of France and Egypt issued condemnations. Meanwhile, passage through the Strait of Hormuz has yet to fully resume. This strategic waterway, which carries one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supply, continues to exert pressure on energy markets.

Under mounting pressure, Trump spoke with Netanyahu, who agreed to begin negotiations on the Lebanon issue. The US State Department announced that US-Lebanon ceasefire talks would be held next week. Vice President JD Vance will lead a delegation to Islamabad this Saturday for direct talks with Iran. However, Netanyahu simultaneously emphasized that "there is no ceasefire in Lebanon" and stated, "We will continue to strike Hezbollah with all our might and will not stop."

For investors, the immediate impact of this divergence is: the uncertainty of energy supply is unlikely to dissipate in the short term, and the risk premium of geopolitical tensions will continue to fuel market volatility. According to Bloomberg, quoting Western and Middle Eastern officials, if the gap between US and Israeli objectives cannot be bridged, Trump may face “a confrontation with no clear exit path.”

Agreement Loophole: Lebanon as the Trigger

When announcing the ceasefire, Trump explicitly noted an end to attacks on Iran but failed to include the Lebanon front in the agreement framework, leaving a key policy loophole. Netanyahu quickly seized on this flaw, openly asserting that "the ceasefire does not include Lebanon," and immediately launched the largest Lebanese military operation since the outbreak of US-Israeli conflict with Iran.

According to Xinhua News, on the afternoon of April 8, Israeli forces carried out more than 100 simultaneous airstrikes on various Lebanese targets in just 10 minutes, resulting in at least 254 deaths and 1,165 injuries. The Lebanese Prime Minister declared April 9 a national day of mourning.

This action quickly stirred nerves on multiple fronts. French President Macron stated on social media that Israel's airstrikes "pose a direct threat to the sustainability of the ceasefire." As one of the ceasefire mediators, Pakistan explicitly stated that arrangements should "cover Lebanon and all other regions and take effect immediately." The Egyptian foreign minister also stressed during a phone call with US Presidential Envoy Steve Witkoff that the attack on Lebanon "undermines all regional and international efforts aimed at de-escalation."

According to Politico, citing an anonymous US government official, "The US is the only country that can compel Israel to act on the Lebanon issue," and commented that Washington "may only be realizing this after what happened yesterday and the global backlash." In response to criticism, Trump downplayed it in an interview, saying that Lebanon is excluded from the ceasefire "because of Hezbollah," and explained, "This is another separate conflict, to be resolved later."

Israel's Strategic Calculation: Dealing a Heavy Blow to Hezbollah During the Window

The logic behind Israel's move is clear: take advantage of the breathing space provided by the US-Iran ceasefire to concentrate military resources for a heavy blow against Lebanon's Hezbollah, Iran's proxy force.

Media reports, quoting informed sources, claim Netanyahu has long steadfastly opposed restarting diplomatic negotiations with Iran. Before Trump announced the ceasefire on Tuesday night, he only told Netanyahu by phone that Lebanon was included in the original treaty terms, but Israel was not an official party to the negotiations and was not adequately consulted in advance.

On a broader strategic level, sources disclose that Netanyahu sees this conflict with Iran as an opportunity to deepen Israel’s security alliance with Gulf states, believing that short-term regional instability will drive longer-term geopolitical reorganization. However, this rationale has yet to be substantiated. Several Gulf states, after suffering massive retaliatory strikes, have become wary of both Israel and Iran, highlighting their strategic vulnerabilities.

Former Israeli Ambassador to the US, Danny Ayalon, said, "Before the outbreak of war, Gulf states were seeking defense coordination with the US and Israel on the one hand, while also trying to ease relations with Iran through diplomacy. Netanyahu thinks this war will help accelerate a strategic alignment between the Gulf and Israel."

In Israel, opposition leader Yair Lapid fiercely criticized on social media, calling the current situation an "outrageous combination of arrogance, irresponsibility, a lack of preparation, and selling lies to the Americans, damaging mutual trust," and labeled it "a military success turning into a diplomatic disaster."

The Hormuz Dilemma: Ceasefire Does Not Untie the Energy Knot

For global markets, the most immediate test of the ceasefire agreement is whether the Strait of Hormuz can be restored to normal passage. Vessel tracking data shows the number of commercial ships passing through the strait remains well below normal levels. Trump himself publicly complained Thursday night that Iran "has performed poorly in allowing oil transit."

The Strait of Hormuz carries approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supply, and Iran sees it as a key bargaining chip in its negotiations with the US. Media analysis points out that there is currently no indication Iran is willing to voluntarily lift controls absent substantial concessions. The Trump Administration has eased some sanctions on Iranian oil, but Washington reportedly remains unclear about what concrete compromises might persuade Tehran to fully reopen this strategic passageway.

The complexity of the situation is compounded by the fact that passage through Hormuz is not a core interest for Israel since it does not rely on this waterway for its energy supply. This means Israel lacks the intrinsic motivation to cooperate with the US and prioritize restoration of shipping through the strait—it is precisely Israel’s continued action in Lebanon that keeps the overall negotiations in a tense state.

Inside Washington: Hawks Recede, Cautious Voices Take Over

The external strategic rift is mirrored inside Washington as well.

Reports indicate that, during decision-making leading up to war, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner were the main proponents of a hardline stance against Iran, working closely with Netanyahu, believing that Iran was persistently delaying nuclear negotiations with no sincerity. This was one of the key reasons Trump ultimately launched "Operation Epic Fury." Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance held more cautious views from the start, warning that Iranian leadership’s resilience was underestimated by the hawks and highlighting the risk of serious regional and global spillover effects.

Now, with the ceasefire agreement in effect, Washington’s power balance has shifted toward caution. JD Vance will lead the US delegation at this Saturday’s Islamabad negotiations, with Witkoff and Kushner accompanying, but the diplomatic agenda, rather than any military escalation, will take precedence.

Former CIA official and Rapidan Energy Group CEO Scott Modell told the media:

"The divisions inside the Trump camp were never about war or peace, but about whose objectives the US military is actually serving."

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly stressed in a statement that Witkoff and Kushner had previously told Trump their judgment of Iran's insincerity in negotiations, believing Iran "is not seriously seeking an agreement with the US." This was among the factors prompting the president to take military action, and she denied that the two had provided any direct military advice.

At an Impasse: War Aims Unmet, No Clear Exit Path

From a strategic outcome standpoint, the US is now stuck in a dilemma: core war objectives remain unmet, while a clear pathway to a peaceful exit is lacking.

According to media reports citing US and European officials, Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs have not been completely destroyed—the primary goals of this military operation. While Iran has suffered heavy blows, it refuses to compromise on core issues such as uranium enrichment, and its negotiating team remains tough. Meanwhile, US forces are still stationed in the Middle East. Trump has made clear that if a "real agreement" is not reached within the two-week ceasefire window, the US will resume, or even escalate, military action. This means if the ceasefire collapses, the conflict could erupt again on a much larger scale.

US and European officials say Israel wants to continue military operations until Iran's core military capabilities are completely dismantled. As a result, the US-Israel rift is not narrowing but widening: the US is eager to find a diplomatic exit, while Israel is determined to complete its perceived unfinished mission. Israel will not be present at Saturday’s Islamabad talks, and diplomatic sources note that any path toward a broader agreement "remains full of uncertainty and largely depends on whether Israel is prepared to shift from escalation to restraint."

Former Israeli government adviser and current RAND Corporation staffer Shira Efron said: "This war initially was what Israel wanted, but it has already taken on a life of its own." For Washington, this means that the war—a war in which others largely dictate the agenda—is becoming a crisis for which the US will have to clean up the mess alone.