The disagreement over the South Pars gas field attack came into sharper focus as Israel’s strike was followed by Iran retaliating against energy infrastructure in other Middle East countries, driving up global energy prices. The attack also left Trump and Netanyahu facing questions about whether they were entirely in sync on prosecuting the broader 20-day war against Iran, with the “daylight — or at least the appearance of it” emerging as a potential factor in how the conflict could end.
Trump, speaking during an Oval Office meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, told reporters that he neither agreed with nor approved of Israel’s decision to strike the South Pars gas field. In remarks reported by the Associated Press, Trump said “I told him, ’Don’t do that,’” describing that the operation was something Netanyahu might do “on occasion,” even as he said the two leaders were “coordinated” overall.
Trump added that the U.S. would not continue along those lines. “And if I don’t like it — and so we’re not doing that anymore,” Trump said, referring to Netanyahu’s decision to target the gas field.
Netanyahu, for his part, said that Israel “acted alone” in the attack and that he had agreed to Trump’s request that Israel hold off on any further strikes on Iran’s giant gas field. At a news conference in Jerusalem, Netanyahu sought to reduce the implied gap by pointing to a shared message about Iran’s threat, saying, “It’s been said that for 40 years I’ve been saying that Iran is a danger to Israel and a danger to the world. That is true,” and adding that Trump had said similar things.
Netanyahu later added that he and Trump had been closely coordinated, saying he did not think any two leaders were as coordinated as he and Trump. “He’s the leader. I’m his ally. America is the leader,” he said, portraying the relationship as centered on U.S. leadership.
In Washington, U.S. officials described the broader picture as one in which Trump and Netanyahu remained aligned in a strategic sense, while acknowledging that war aims could be expressed differently. The Associated Press reported that U.S. air operations have focused on decimating Iran’s missile program, pressing its nuclear program, and destroying its navy, while Israel has carried out high-level assassinations as it seeks to topple Iran’s leadership that has been in power since 1979.
The reporting also described a difference in emphasis between the two governments’ framing of what comes next. Netanyahu has framed the moment as an opportunity to usher in a new Middle East in which Iran’s government would be led by more moderate leadership less hostile to Israel, while Trump has consistently presented as a primary objective making sure Iran “never has a nuclear weapon.”
That divergence in stated goals was underscored during a congressional hearing, where Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told House intelligence committee members that the objectives laid out by the president differed from the objectives laid out by the Israeli government. The Associated Press reported that statement in a context of questions about the White House position on the gas field strike.
The Associated Press also reported that Trump’s war aims had evolved in other ways compared with earlier parts of the conflict. It said Trump had at first told Iranians they would soon have an opportunity to rid themselves of the clerical rule of the past 47 years, but later expressed greater caution in public remarks about a pathway for opponents of the Islamic government, including concerns about the Basij force’s role in crushing protests.
One U.S. official who spoke with the Associated Press characterized the relationship as showing pressure and potential rifts as the war continued, noting that the end of hostilities would likely involve decisions by Trump. The Associated Press also included comments from Joel Rubin, a former State Department official in the Obama administration, who said Netanyahu had spent decades trying to obtain American support for decapitating strikes on Iran, and described Trump as the first president to say “Go for it,” while also warning that any future endgame would require both sides to be in sync on when to stop the operation and how.
In addition to the public clash over the gas field, the Associated Press reported that two people familiar with the matter—who were not authorized to comment publicly—said the U.S. had been made aware of Israel’s plan ahead of the attack. One of those people said Israel’s targets were being coordinated with the U.S., while the two described that coordination as part of the lead-up to the strike.
The episode marked the most notable difference of opinion between Trump and Netanyahu since the start of the war against Iran, according to the Associated Press reporting, as both leaders addressed the gas field attack through diverging language and separate explanations of how closely the operation had been coordinated.