The Pentagon should help close three gaps exposed by the Iran war: campaign termination, regional missile defense, and industrial replenishment

The Iran war has demonstrated that the United States and Israel can coordinate military operations at remarkable scale. It has not demonstrated that they can agree on when, how, or under what political conditions the campaign should end.

That distinction is becoming harder to ignore. After nearly five months of war, U.S. forces completed thirteen consecutive nights of renewed strikes against Iran in late July. President Donald Trump then ordered a pause as diplomatic efforts intensified; Israel had not participated in those latest U.S. attacks. The shift from sustained bombing toward a possible diplomatic off-ramp illustrates the central problem: operational cooperation remains extensive, but the two allies are increasingly acting on different political clocks.

That is not an argument for less cooperation. It is an argument for institutionalizing the cooperation that matters most before tactical success produces strategic friction.

The war has already generated valuable operational practices: intelligence sharing, missile-warning coordination, logistics support, battle-damage assessment, air-defense cooperation, and contingency planning. But crisis improvisation is not a strategy. Without standing mechanisms for defining success, managing escalation, and sustaining inventories, the alliance could emerge from the war more integrated militarily yet less aligned politically.

The Pentagon should therefore promote three immediate steps.

First, establish a standing bilateral framework for campaign planning, escalation management, and war termination.

Operational synchronization is not political agreement. Washington may prioritize protecting U.S. forces and maritime navigation, suppressing immediate threats, limiting regional spillover, and creating space for diplomacy. Israel may seek deeper and more durable degradation of Iran’s........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)