Israel may have been plotting to kill Iran’s top negotiators while peace talks were underway, US officials have said, with experts telling The New Arab that the incident has revealed greater cracks in US-Israeli interests and relationship.
Former and current American officials told The New York Times that the targeting of top Iranian negotiators has long been part of Israel’s strategy, but that plans were being more widely discussed when the US first engaged in ceasefire talks with Tehran in April.
The officials said that the US was forced to ask other countries to warn Iran about Israeli plans to target Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf , the speaker of the parliament, as they feared any attacks would derail talks.
Idrees Ahmed, a journalist, academic, and senior lecturer at the University of Essex, told The New Arab that Israel and the US have rarely had common interests, and this latest development has further revealed that.
“This is not the first time Israel has tried to sabotage diplomacy, and Trump has been humiliated twice before. But Netanyahu understands that Trump fears nothing more than the appearance of weakness. So when Israel pre-empted Trump's diplomacy in 2025, he had to pretend that it was all done with this approval,” Ahmed said.
“Presidents since Eisenhower have seen Israel as a strategic liability. But they've failed to confront it entirely out of domestic political considerations,” he continued.
The gap between Israel and the US’s goals has been evident since the start of the war on 28 February, with the US striking mainly Iranian navy and missile forces, while Israel favoured killing top officials and trying to force a regime change. The US has also pushed for a peace agreement, while Israel has been sharply against this.
A US official and a Middle East official also said the Trump administration learned that Ghalibaf was on an Israeli targeting list in March, and asked Israel to hold back.
“The US has vast leverage over Israel, and the president has shown the will to use it. That's why they had to send warnings to the Iranians through third parties,” Ahmed explained.
“Israelis know that even Trump, who is largely independent of the GOP, can't use the leverage without mobilising different elements of the Israel lobby against him, which includes not just AIPAC, but also figures like Miriam Adelson, the Ellisons, and influential figures in the media,” he continued.
As a result of the threat from Israel, Iranian officials took extra precautions despite peace negotiations with the US being underway.
The precautions included seeking guarantees from the US through Pakistani and Qatari intermediaries, and increased security and an emergency landing when Ghalibaf was set to meet Vice President JD Vance in Islamabad. Dutch-Palestinian analyst Mouin Rabbani told The New Arab that the remarks from officials confirm that there is a very significant distinction between the US and Iran on one hand, and Israel on the other.
“The US and Iran are each seeking to maximize their benefits in any diplomatic agreement. To achieve the deal that best reflects their interests. Israel on the other hand rejects diplomacy as a matter of principle, and considers any and every agreement unacceptable by definition, and representing a strategic loss,” he said.
“It further demonstrates that the US, after having been confronted with the limits of its power during the war, is at least for the time being taking diplomacy seriously rather than merely deploying it as camouflage for wars of aggression,” he added.
Rabbani further said that if the US did indeed prevent Israel from carrying out assassinations, it shows that Israel believed it had a carte blanche from Washington to do as it pleases, but it is the US that ultimately calls the shots in the relationship.
“If the US indeed felt compelled to warn Iran of Israel's intentions even after ordering its Israeli proxy to desist from this course of action, it suggests that Washington feared Israel remained sufficiently confident of its ability to do as it pleases and get away with it, and proceed with its plans despite being ordered not to,” he said.
“It may also reflect deep divisions within Washington between supporters and opponents of the Israeli plan, and fears that despite being told not to proceed, Israel may have been advised by supporters in Washington to go ahead and that the damage would subsequently be contained,” he continued.
However, Rabbani argues that there is not necessarily a divergence of strategy or tactics between the US and Israel, but it is rather a matter of the US coming to the conclusion it could only succeed militarily if it committed massive additional resources, and was not prepared to do so, particularly with no guarantee of success.
He added that Israel was determined that Washington should commit the manpower and resources required to finish the job, which was the source of the differing perspectives.