Late into the night, as Iranian air defenses lit up the skies over Isfahan and the echoes of explosions rippled across the desert, Israel revealed what it called Operation Rising Lion—a full-scale military campaign aimed at degrading Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Tel Aviv painted the picture of a decisive, almost heroic act, steeped in existential urgency. But within hours, a strange thing happened. The United States, Israel’s closest strategic ally, took a step back.
Moments ago, Israel launched Operation “Rising Lion”, a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival.
— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) June 13, 2025
This operation will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat.
——
Statement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: pic.twitter.com/XgUTy90g1S
And then another. And another.
The Trump administration, through statements from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others, firmly insisted that the United States was not involved in any way. Not in the planning. Not in the execution. Not even in the shadows.
So what’s going on here?
Two Narratives, One Strike
Israel, as is often the case in its military operations, moved fast and without apology. Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose political future has hung in a precarious balance since the October 7 debacle, announced the operation with grand rhetoric—referencing the Holocaust, invoking national survival, and, notably, thanking President Donald Trump for his “leadership” in the fight against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
That one line—about Trump—set off alarm bells in Washington. Soon after, Rubio issued a sharp statement: “Israel acted in its own right. We were not part of this operation.” Trump himself, in his usual offhand TV style, admitted he was informed “in advance,” but denied any coordination. “This was their call, not ours,” he said.
So, who’s telling the full truth? Or more precisely, who’s crafting a truth that serves their interests?
Israel-US More Than Just a Miscommunication
On the surface, it could be brushed off as a diplomatic clumsiness—Israel implying U.S. support, Washington scrambling to avoid blowback. But that would be missing the deeper current: this isn’t the first time the U.S. and Israel have been out of step when it comes to Iran. What’s unusual this time is how public the gap is.
Statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 13, 2025
“Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its… pic.twitter.com/5FFesh3dkF
Historically, Washington and Tel Aviv have danced a careful choreography around Iran. From the covert Stuxnet cyberattacks to joint drills in the Gulf, the coordination has been tight—even if not always visible. But there’s also a long track record of Israel being ready to act alone. In 1981, it took out Iraq’s nuclear reactor without telling anyone. In 2007, it did the same in Syria. And in 2012, Obama officials were reportedly paranoid that Netanyahu might launch a strike on Iran without a heads-up.
This latest operation, though, seemed different. It was loud. It was extensive. And it came at a time when the U.S. was still trying—however naively—to get Iran back to the negotiating table. Which raises the question: was Israel trying to rope the U.S. in, or was the U.S. trying to keep one foot out the door?
Why the Divergence Between Israel & US?
From Israel’s point of view, the messaging may have been strategic. By invoking U.S. support—even obliquely—it sends a strong signal to Tehran: we’re not alone. It bolsters deterrence. It reassures the Israeli public, which still remembers the intelligence failures of last year. And it puts pressure on Washington: if the world thinks you’re in, then maybe you have to act like it.
For Netanyahu, the stakes are also domestic. His political capital has been spent and spent again. A successful, high-profile strike on Iran gives him a much-needed boost. Suggesting U.S. approval strengthens his image—he’s not just a warrior, but a statesman who brings allies to the table.
But Washington’s calculus is different. Trump may be bombastic, but he’s also wary of new wars. His base doesn’t want another Middle East entanglement. And Iran, unpredictable and emboldened, might lash out at American troops in Iraq or Syria. So Washington is walking a tightrope—defending Israel rhetorically, but keeping its fingerprints off the operation.
There’s also the optics problem: if diplomacy fails, fine. But if diplomacy fails because Israel jumped the gun and the U.S. looked complicit, then the backlash—domestic and international—could be fierce.
Danger in the Disconnect
For adversaries like Iran, the divergence in messaging could be seen as weakness. Tehran was quick to call out the U.S., accusing it of complicity regardless of the denials. That’s a classic move: lump the allies together, even when they’re pulling apart. Whether or not Iran truly believes the U.S. was involved is almost irrelevant. What matters is that the narrative now allows for retaliation against both.
Meanwhile, allies and observers are left confused. Is this a new doctrine of plausible deniability from Washington? A one-off blunder in communications? Or a sign that the alliance is fraying under the weight of diverging interests?
Whatever the answer, the danger is real. Because in geopolitics, perception often matters more than reality. And right now, the perception is this: Israel says one thing. America says another. And in the middle, a region that’s already a powder keg is one miscalculation away from something far bigger.
Operation Roarin Lion may have succeeded tactically—targets hit, commanders killed, a message sent. But strategically? It may have introduced more ambiguity than clarity. If allies like the U.S. and Israel can’t present a unified front when it matters most, it’s not just their enemies who will take note. So will their friends.
And the next time, there may not be enough room to walk back the words.
