JERUSALEM, June 24 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Air Force refueling aircraft remain parked at Ben-Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv, occupying space and resources and complicating the airport's return to normal operations.

The sight is a reminder of close military cooperation between the United States and Israel. Yet it also reflects a growing reality: the two allies no longer appear to share the same vision for dealing with Iran.

As Washington seeks to shift from confrontation with Tehran to diplomacy, Israel has increasingly positioned itself as the principal regional skeptic and, at times, a potential spoiler.

DIFFERENT ENDGAMES

Lebanon has emerged as a key sticking point. While Iran's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva has said any renewed attack against Lebanon would cross Tehran's "red line" and urged Washington to use its leverage on Israel, Israel has vowed to maintain its military presence and freedom of action in southern Lebanon. The competing positions have turned Lebanon into an important front in the bargaining between Washington and Tehran.

For decades, many Israelis believed the United States would ultimately stand firmly alongside Israel on Iran. The recent U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding has challenged that assumption.

Eyal Zisser, vice rector of Tel Aviv University and an expert on Middle East affairs, told Xinhua that Washington's priorities are preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, securing maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and avoiding another regional war.

Israel, however, sees the Iranian threat in much broader terms. "For Israel, the issue is not only the nuclear program," Zisser said. "It is also Iran's ballistic missiles, drone capabilities and its network of regional proxies."

For many in Israel's strategic community, their concern is not only the U.S.-Iran agreement, but the message it sends: Washington is prepared to manage Iran rather than defeat it.

GROWING FRICTIONS

The differing approaches have exposed new tensions in one of the world's closest alliances. The Jerusalem Post noted that many Israelis fear a U.S.-Iran rapprochement could weaken American deterrence against Tehran and give Iran time and resources to rebuild its regional influence.

The emerging framework has also turned Lebanon into a new fault line. While mediators are seeking arrangements to reduce tensions along the Israel-Lebanon border and create conditions for further U.S.-Iran negotiations, Israeli leaders have made clear they are not prepared to scale back military operations unless their security demands are met.

In a joint statement on Monday, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz and military chief Eyal Zamir said the Israel Defense Forces would continue to act against threats in southern Lebanon, demolish militant infrastructure and maintain the security zone established there.

U.S. officials have tried to hold the diplomatic tracks together. A State Department official said the Israel-Lebanon talks in Washington were aimed at advancing "a comprehensive peace and security agreement" between the two countries. The official said the shared goal was to "end the cycle of violence for good" and enable Israel and Lebanon to negotiate as sovereign states.

Still, concerns are more pronounced within Israel's ruling coalition. Far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich -- key pillars of Netanyahu's government -- have signaled strong opposition to any arrangement that would require Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon or fully align itself with Trump's regional agenda.

Former Mossad official and Iran expert Sima Shine believes Lebanon could become the next major source of friction.

"The United States wants to lower tensions and create conditions for further diplomacy with Iran," she said. "Israel wants to preserve military pressure and prevent Hezbollah from recovering."

STRAINED ALLIANCE

Few analysts expect a fundamental rupture in U.S.-Israel relations as Israel still relies heavily on U.S. military assistance and diplomatic support, while Washington continues to regard Israel as a key regional partner.

Trump has emphasized that the United States and Israel have a strong relationship, but he has also shown frustration. He said last week he was "not happy" with the way Israel had handled Lebanon and Hezbollah, arguing that the fighting risked casting "a negative light" on the U.S.-Iran agreement.

Experts also believe Israel is unlikely to launch another full-scale war on its own. The Israeli society is showing signs of fatigue after prolonged conflicts, and the government must consider mounting economic and social pressures.

Analysts predict Israel will likely adopt a strategy of limited confrontation: publicly maintaining support for Washington while continuing to exert pressure on Iran and its allies through airstrikes, intelligence operations and military deployments.

Yet this approach carries risks. The inclusion of Lebanon in the U.S.-Iran diplomatic agenda means any renewed Israeli operation there could complicate negotiations and undermine efforts to stabilize the region.

The debate surrounding the U.S.-Iran negotiations has revealed a deeper shift. The United States appears to be moving from a strategy of defeating Iran to one of managing it, and from unconditional alignment with Israeli preferences toward balancing broader regional interests.

For many Israelis, that strategic signal may prove more consequential than the agreement itself. The U.S.-Israel alliance is unlikely to break apart. But as the two countries pursue increasingly different priorities on Iran, Lebanon and regional security, managing their differences may become just as important as preserving their partnership.