There is perhaps nowhere further removed from the horrors of war unfolding across the Middle East than the tranquility of Lake Geneva, its surrounding mountains and the city itself, where negotiations between the US and Iran have been proceeding at a painfully slow pace in an effort to reach a deal that could end the conflict. Yet, alongside these talks, another development has emerged that could significantly influence their outcome and reshape the political and security architecture of the Middle East in both the short and long term: the growing rift between the US administration and the Israeli government.This divide reflects a genuine divergence of interests over whether the war should continue or end. It also mirrors a gradual shift in American attitudes away from unquestioning support for Israel. Equally, it is a product of the personalities of the leaders of both governments: leaders who tend to be tactical, transactional and self-serving rather than strategic.There has long been an element of predictability to this growing tension, as it has been brewing for some time. At the outset of the latest round of hostilities with Iran, both countries operated on the assumption that the campaign would be short, lasting days or at most weeks, and would fatally weaken the Iranian regime. This, in turn, was expected to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, its long-range ballistic missile capabilities and its support of a network of regional allies and proxies. Needless to say, these assumptions were unrealistic from the outset.More importantly, there was no Plan B when Plan A failed. While Israel never appeared to regard the possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz or Iranian attacks against neighboring Gulf states as decisive factors in either launching or ending the war, these should have been critical considerations for American policymakers when deciding whether to join the campaign or how to conduct........

© Eurasia Review