A growing gap seems to be emerging between Washington and Tel Aviv over the future of the war with Iran as US President Donald Trump signals that the conflict may end "soon" while Israel appears determined to sustain military pressure.

The diverging messages come just 10 days after the two allies launched coordinated strikes on Iran, highlighting differences in their strategic objectives and the domestic constraints shaping their decisions. While Israel sees the campaign as a chance to fundamentally weaken a long-standing regional adversary, the United States is increasingly weighing the economic and political costs of a prolonged conflict.

Speaking on Monday, Trump said the US-Israeli military strikes against Iran would be over "soon," declaring that US goals were largely accomplished. His remarks came as concerns grow in the United States about the economic cost of the conflict, rising oil prices and weakening public support.

Israel, however, appears to be moving in the opposite direction.

On Monday, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) announced a new wave of large-scale air strikes against Iranian targets. A day earlier, Israel carried out overnight attacks on Tehran's oil storage facilities, a move that triggered skepticism in Washington and anger in Iran.

Although Israel informed the United States in advance, reports suggest US officials were still surprised by the scale of the strikes. A senior US official said Washington believed targeting oil infrastructure was "not a good idea," warning such attacks could rally Iranian public support for the government while pushing up global oil prices.

Even Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime Republican hawk on Iran and a close Trump ally, urged caution, saying Israel should "please be cautious about what targets you select."

Strategic goals not entirely aligned

Analysts say the diverging signals highlight deeper differences in how the two allies view Iran and the ultimate goals of the war.

Sun Taiyi, a professor at Christopher Newport University in the United States, told CGTN that although both countries want to weaken Iran, their long-term objectives are not identical.

Israel, he said, seeks a far-reaching neutralization of Iran's strategic capabilities, including eliminating any potential threat it may pose in the Middle East and significantly reducing Tehran's regional political and ideological influence.

The United States, however, is often satisfied with a more limited outcome.

"Washington does not necessarily need to completely eliminate Iran's regional influence or bring about regime change," Sun said. "The US could accept almost any leadership in Tehran, even from within the existing system, as long as it is willing to cooperate with Washington or reduce confrontation."

Wang Jin, director of the Center for Israel Studies at Northwest University, told CGTN that the two countries also differ in how they perceive the threat posed by Iran.

According to Wang, the United States hopes military pressure will force Iran to make political concessions, but it has little interest in completely weakening Iran or overthrowing its government. Israel, by contrast, views Iran as its most serious existential threat and therefore seeks to inflict the maximum possible damage.

Domestic politics in Israel may also be shaping its military posture.

Sun noted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing ongoing legal and political pressure at home. Maintaining a posture of external confrontation can help consolidate political support and ease domestic criticism.

A poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 93% of Jewish respondents in Israel – including 76% of those on the left – supported the decision to attack Iran, a surge in approval that has helped Netanyahu shift attention away from domestic controversies, including corruption charges and criticism over security failures surrounding the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023.

Domestic pressure grows in the United States

While the Israeli public opinion strongly backs the war, the political environment in the United States is far more cautious.

Wang said Washington must consider a wider range of factors, including the reactions of regional allies and the potential economic consequences at home. A prolonged conflict could fuel inflation and drive up energy prices in the United States.

Political pressure is already mounting.

Democrats in Congress have questioned whether Trump has the authority to wage war without explicit approval, while some Republicans are wary of the United States becoming entangled in another prolonged Middle East conflict.

Public opinion also appears skeptical.

A Quinnipiac poll released Monday found that 53% of Americans opposed military action against Iran, even just days into the conflict. The survey also showed that 44% believed the United States was too supportive of Israel.

Economic risks are also rising as tensions threaten global energy supply routes.

According to the Lloyd's Market Association on Saturday, roughly 1,000 ships carrying cargo worth about $25 billion have been stranded in the Gulf and nearby waters amid growing security concerns.

International oil prices have surged as the conflict intensified. US crude futures briefly climbed to about $120 per barrel – the first time since mid-2022 – highlighting fears that a prolonged conflict could disrupt global energy markets.

Iran has also issued warnings over the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said security in the waterway could not be guaranteed as long as the US and Israel continued military strikes against Iran.

How the war could end

Despite Israel's aggressive posture, analysts believe Washington ultimately holds greater leverage over how the conflict will end.

Wang said Trump retains significant influence over Israeli decision-making.

"If the United States withdraws from the war or halts large-scale strikes against Iran, the current conflict would gradually subside," Wang said. "Israel may decide when the conflict begins, but the end of the conflict largely depends on the United States."

Sun suggested Trump may already be preparing the political ground to declare victory.

By arguing that Iran's military capabilities have been significantly degraded, Trump is framing the current situation as a strategic success. If Iran's ability to retaliate has indeed been weakened, the conflict may not need to continue much longer.

However, escalation remains possible. Trump has not ruled out sending US special forces to seize Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles. Sun said if such an operation were attempted and failed – particularly if it resulted in significant casualties – the conflict could expand and last much longer.

"In that scenario, both sides would likely face increasing domestic pressures, including the economic strain caused by rising oil prices, which could weigh heavily on the Trump administration," Sun said.

He added that leaders such as Trump often weigh whether military actions deliver visible strategic, economic or political gains. Under such conditions, the most likely endgame may be a negotiated de-escalation, allowing each side to claim some form of success while stepping back from a wider war.