A notable rift has emerged between President Donald Trump and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as their diverging language on Israel’s decision to attack a critical Iranian gas field marks the most significant difference of opinion since the 20-day conflict began.

The Israeli strike on the South Pars gas field immediately triggered retaliation from Tehran against energy infrastructure in other Middle Eastern nations. This escalation further exacerbated already elevated global energy prices, prompting Gulf allies to urge the US president to curb Mr Netanyahu’s actions.

The aftermath of the strike has raised questions regarding the synchronicity of the two leaders in prosecuting a war that commenced as a closely coordinated joint effort against their long-standing regional adversary. The emergence of daylight – or at least the indication of it – between them could significantly influence the balance of the ongoing conflict and any eventual endgame.

During an Oval Office meeting with Japanese prime minister Sanae Takaichi, President Trump explicitly told reporters that he “neither agreed with nor approved of” Israel’s assault on the world’s largest gas field, which serves as an energy lifeline for Iran.

“I told him, ‘Don’t do that’,” Mr Trump said of the Israel leader’s decision to strike. “We get along great. It’s coordinated, but on occasion he’ll do something. And if I don’t like it – and so we’re not doing that anymore.

Mr Netanyahu said that Israel “acted alone” and that he’s agreed to Mr Trump’s request that Israel hold off on any further attack on Iran’s giant gas field. The prime minister also sought to downplay any space between him and Trump.

“For 40 years, I’ve been saying that Iran is a danger to Israel and a danger to the world. That is true,” Mr Netanyahu said at a news conference in Jerusalem. “You know who else said that? President Trump.”

The prime minister later added: “Look, I don’t think any two leaders have been as coordinated as President Trump and I. He’s the leader. I’m his ally. America is the leader.”

Mr Trump’s first public reaction to Wednesday’s strike on the Iranian gas field came several hours afterwards in a fiery social media post where he also declared the US “knew nothing” about the attack before it was carried out.

Two people familiar with the matter who were not authorised to comment publicly said the US was made aware of Israel’s plan ahead of the attack. The people were not authorised to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. One of the people said Israel’s targets are being coordinated with the US.

Top US administration officials on Thursday made the case that Mr Trump is simpatico with Mr Netanyahu, but is ultimately guided in his Iran strategy by what he believes is in the US national security interest.

The US air campaign has focused on decimating Iran’s missile program, pummeling its already beleaguered nuclear program and destroying its navy. Israel, meanwhile, has carried out one high-level assassination after another as it looks to topple the Islamic authority that has led the country since 1979.

The prime minister has framed the moment as an opportunity to usher in a new era in the Middle East – one in which the government in Tehran is run by a more moderate leadership that is not hostile to Israel.

Mr Netanyahu is buoyed by an Israeli public that is far more supportive of the war than the American public, giving him the political leeway to support a sustained operation that could deliver a decisive blow to Iran’s clerical rule.

Though Mr Trump has offered myriad reasons for the conflict, he’s consistently articulated that ensuring that Iran “never has a nuclear weapon” is his primary objective.

“The objectives that have been laid out by the president are different from the objectives that have been laid out by the Israeli government,” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard noted to House intelligence committee members on Thursday, when asked during a hearing about the White House position on the gas field strike.

The US leader, in contrast with Netanyahu, has cooled on the prospects of toppling Iran’s clerical authority and paving the way for a more moderate government.

It’s been a significant evolution for the president from the start of the US and Israeli bombardment, when he confidently told Iranians that they would soon have an opportunity to rid themselves of the clerical rule of the past 47 years.

But in a Fox News Radio interview last week, Trump was far more measured about the pathway ahead for opponents of the Islamic government and expressed concerns about the paramilitary Basij force, which has played a central role in crushing recent nationwide protests, maintaining its grip as a menacing force in Iran.

“So, I really think that’s a big hurdle to climb for people that don’t have weapons. I think it’s a very big hurdle,” Mr Trump said.

Asked by host Brian Kilmeade if he agreed with Mr Netanyahu’s calls for Iranians to take back their country, the US leader made clear he didn’t think they were ready to rise up. “I would think that Bibi would understand that too,” Mr Trump added.

Over the course of Mr Trump’s five years in the White House, Netanyahu has arguably been his most steadfast ally among foreign leaders. The Israeli prime minister, for his part, never misses an opportunity to gush that the Jewish state has never had a more reliable friend in the White House.

But over the last three weeks, Mr Trump and aides have acknowledged that the two countries come at the war differently. And Mr Trump has said those differences are natural.

“You know, they’re there, and we’re very far away,” he noted.

In the big picture, differences between the two are so far largely superficial, said Joel Rubin, a former State Department official in the Obama administration.

The Israeli prime minister has “been trying to figure out how to get American support for many decades” to get behind his push for decapitating strikes on Iran. This is “the first president to say, ‘Go for it!’”, Mr Rubin said.

Still, the longer the war goes on, the more pressure Mr Trump could face politically and the more rifts could form, the former Obama admin said.

“When the war ends it’s likely gonna be Trump’s call and I do think that we’re probably gonna have a dynamic where, in the future, they’ll have to figure out how to be in sync in terms of identifying and defining when it’s time to end the military operation,” Mr Rubin said of the two leaders. “And Israel does not have the same focus on global oil markets as the US, and the repercussions.”