A change is becoming increasingly evident between the United States and Israel!

In the past few days, Israeli Channel 12 and the American New York Times have reported on a matter of widespread public concern: what exactly is driving Israel and the United States to decide to launch an attack on Iran at the end of February?

Although both media outlets point to the Israeli intelligence and special operations agency (Mossad) providing a special plan to Netanyahu and the United States before the attack began, the narratives of the two media outlets on the same issue show significant differences.

This difference directly reflects the increasingly apparent divergence between the United States and Israel on the Iran issue.

Let’s first look at the report from the New York Times. On March 22, this American media outlet revealed in an article about why the U.S. would follow Israel in military action against Iran that, before the two governments decided to launch an attack on Iran at the end of February this year, Mossad director David Barnea had approached Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu with a special plan, claiming that Mossad had the capability to incite the Iranian opposition to “initiate a revolt” within Iran after a U.S.-Israeli attack, ultimately achieving the goal of “overthrowing the Iranian regime.”

However, the New York Times stated that more than 20 days into the war, the so-called “revolt” that Barnea had promised to Netanyahu had not materialized, which left Netanyahu quite “angry,” as this was an important reason why Israel had previously persuaded the U.S. government to take military action against Iran. The report also mentioned that Netanyahu was very concerned this could lead the U.S. to withdraw troops and end the fighting at any moment.

The report also emphasized that Barnea had proposed a similar plan as early as January this year and had communicated with U.S. officials at that time, but U.S. officials—even personnel from Israeli military intelligence—did not believe that Mossad could incite a so-called “revolt to overthrow the current Iranian regime” domestically. Yet Barnea’s optimism ultimately influenced Netanyahu, who then used this to persuade the U.S., leading the United States into a conflict that has now lasted over 20 days.

The New York Times stated that these situations it described were derived from interviews conducted by its four reporters with more than a dozen current and former officials from the U.S., Israel, and other countries.

New York Times

Screenshot of the March 22 report

However, the Israeli media Channel 12, while also reporting that Mossad director Barnea had approached Netanyahu and U.S. officials before the war, proposing a plan to “incite internal unrest in Iran,” did not conclude that Mossad had misjudged the situation in Iran, but seemed to be defending Mossad.

This Israeli media outlet also stated that Barnea had indicated that for Mossad to successfully incite a “revolt” within Iran, Israel and the U.S. would first need to “significantly damage the armed forces maintaining Iran’s regime stability,” which “would take some time.”

Image from the Israel Times

March 20 report citing Israeli Channel 12

This distinctly different narrative style regarding the same event reflects the growing divergence between the U.S. and Israel on the Iran issue. The U.S. seems increasingly fearful of being backfired and wants to extricate itself sooner, while Israel appears unwilling to back down.

Last week, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines also hinted at this sentiment. According to a report from Politico, Haines stated that the strategic goals of the U.S. and Israel in striking Iran are different; the U.S. does not seek a change in the Iranian regime, “which may differ from Israel’s goals.”

Similarly, last week, Joe Kent, the director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, voluntarily resigned due to his inability to continue supporting the U.S. war against Iran. Notably, in his resignation letter, Kent also mentioned that some senior Israeli officials and lobbying groups had provided misleading information to the U.S., which fueled pro-war sentiment within the U.S. government.

Finally, the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank studying foreign affairs in the U.S., released a 75-minute interview video last week, featuring four experts discussing the domestic situation in Iran. These experts generally believe that the Iranian regime will not be overthrown in the U.S.-Israeli airstrikes. They also provided several reasons from military and institutional perspectives.

From a military perspective, they stated that there has been no so-called “armed uprising” on the streets of Iran, nor has there been any “public rebellion” by high-ranking military officials, and from an institutional perspective, Iran’s national institutions and systems demonstrate resilience. They believe this is why, even when several high-ranking Iranian officials were killed in airstrikes, their positions could still be filled, allowing the system to continue functioning.