Vice President JD Vance confronted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a tense phone call earlier this week, telling him that several of his prewar predictions about the Iran conflict had proved "far too optimistic," according to US and Israeli officials briefed on the exchange. The sharpest disagreement centred on regime change — the idea, heavily promoted by Netanyahu before the strikes began, that military action would trigger a popular uprising against the Islamic Republic.

It has not happened. Four weeks into the conflict, with over 1,750 Iranians dead and critical infrastructure destroyed across the country, there is no sign of the mass revolt that Israeli intelligence assessed as likely. If anything, the strikes appear to have rallied Iranians around the regime — exactly the outcome US intelligence agencies warned about before the war began.

What Vance Said

"Before the war, Bibi really sold it to the president as being easy, as regime change being a lot likelier than it was," a US source familiar with the call told reporters. "And the VP was clear-eyed about some of those statements." Vance reportedly told Netanyahu that the US and Israel agreed on most military objectives but that their outlooks diverged sharply on the question of regime change and the "amount of chaos and bloodshed that's acceptable to try to bring it about."

The exchange reflects a growing rift between Washington and Jerusalem over war aims. While Netanyahu lists creating the conditions for a popular uprising among Israel's core objectives, US officials say Trump views regime change as more of a "bonus" — desirable but not worth prolonging the conflict to achieve.

Netanyahu's Earlier Pitch

In the weeks before strikes began, Netanyahu made his case directly to Trump in multiple calls and at least one in-person meeting. Israeli intelligence presented assessments suggesting that Iran's population was deeply hostile to the regime and that targeted strikes on the IRGC and security apparatus could create the conditions for a popular revolt. Trump was reportedly sympathetic but sceptical, at one point telling Netanyahu that protesters would "get mowed down" if they took to the streets.

That scepticism has been vindicated. Iran's security forces have maintained order. The regime has channelled public anger outward, toward the United States and Israel, rather than allowing it to turn inward. The Iranian diaspora opposition, which Netanyahu cited as evidence of popular discontent, has had negligible impact inside the country.

Israel's Response

Israeli officials pushed back on the characterisation of the call, with one describing it as "cordial and constructive." A senior Israeli diplomat accused unnamed US officials of leaking a distorted account to undermine the alliance. Hours after the call became public, the Israeli Air Force struck military targets in Isfahan — a move some analysts interpreted as a signal that Israel intends to maintain its operational tempo regardless of American discomfort.

The Negotiation Question

Vance is expected to be the top US negotiator in any potential peace talks with Iran. He has already held multiple calls with Gulf allies about the war and been involved in indirect communications with Tehran through Pakistani and Omani intermediaries. His willingness to confront Netanyahu suggests he is trying to create diplomatic space — space that Israel's continued maximalist rhetoric threatens to close.

The US-Israel relationship has survived worse disagreements. But the gap between an American president who wants a deal and an Israeli prime minister who wants regime change is not a gap that can be papered over indefinitely. At some point, one of them will have to give.