This weekend, the closest Washington and Jerusalem get to the same battlefield are from opposite sides of the road and the space between them is the most intriguing aspect of the story. Friday CBS News broke the news that American and Israeli planners had created what could be one of the most intense bombing campaigns of the five-month war, targeting Iran's power plants, refineries and other energy facilities. In a matter of hours, CNN was talking about something that muddied the waters: Israel doesn't appear to be committed to accompanying the Americans when the bombs begin to rain down.

It matters more than one might think. An Israeli official told CBS the decision had not been made and Jerusalem was not consulted. ABC News reports that the plan was discussed at least with Israeli officials, but it was not clear whether Israel would be directly involved. As the three reports are combined, the overall picture is of a Washington-directed strike that Israel has been briefed on and is coordinating around but not one Israel is determined to fight.

The timing goes back to Friday's televised cabinet meeting at Camp David, usually a place where such things are decided and not ordinary meetings. President Trump seized the opportunity to indicate that he had had enough of patience, that Iran would be dealt a "very hard" blow and that he wanted to win. The strike plan was discussed during that same meeting, but some White House aides working on the political calendar pushed back it, according to CBS. The president has yet to issue final authorization. The Wall Street Journal has also reported that Trump requested new strikes with the clear aim of compelling Tehran to capitulate, but has said he would suspend the campaign if there is what the paper says "immediate progress" on the diplomatic front.

The target for this round is different to previous rounds in the war. The United States and Israel have focused their efforts on nuclear facilities, missile manufacturing and military command during the conflict, which started on Feb. 28. Energy infrastructure, according to several sources involved in the talks, would be novel and, far more dangerous. Power plants and refineries are not only military equipment, they're the infrastructure of a civilian economy of nearly 90 million people. In fact, plans were discussed to wrap up the campaign before markets open on Monday, in large part due to global energy prices, CBS reported. There was no set time limit.

That economic fear isn't just theoretical. Futures data tracked by oilprice.com and Trading Economics shows that Brent crude has been selling in the high 80s for the past week and more than twenty per cent higher in July than it was at this time last year, and about a third higher than the lows of the first week of August. Barclays has outlined scenarios that could once again bring Brent into double digits, in a post which refers to the time of the March oil price surge, when Iran attacked the South Pars gas field and hit energy capital targets in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The Strait is the fault line, as about one-fifth of the world's seaborne oil passes through the narrow strait, and each escalation of the year has had a corresponding shock in shipping premiums and shipping rates in the Gulf region.

Chokepoint logic was clearly in evidence on Saturday morning when the Kuwait defense ministry claimed its forces had stopped a batch of Iranian drones targeting infrastructure in the northern part of the state. Though no one was injured, the strike occurred hours after Tehran's top security official, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, threatened to extend its blockade to other waterways if the U.S. naval pressure persisted. Meanwhile, Iran has also recently claimed that it has suffered new attacks on its oil tankers and has blamed Washington for the escalation of tensions, not the other way around.

In the war that the administration is fighting at home, as well as against Iran, the public is skeptical. The new AP-NORC poll reveals that the share of adult Americans who say the conflict isn't worth fighting has increased to two-thirds with a significant portion of that opposition coming from among the country's Republicans, as well as an overwhelming body of Democratic and independent voters. Only about a quarter approved the president's handling of the war, and that was the case in both separate NBC and Pew polls, which showed majorities dissenting on both the decision to strike Iran and the way the campaign has been progressing since. But the erosion isn't complete, it's wide enough that it now affects the way politicians discuss the end game for the war, even among those who are more sympathetic toward the government, who openly broach the notion of exit strategies while talking about escalation in Washington.

The chasm between a military strategy that continues to be expanding and an increasingly bitter public sentiment may be the true news on Saturday's headlines. Israel's apparent reluctance to participate in a strike against Iran's energy grid doesn't have to mean a difference in opinion with Washington; it could just mean that Israel isn't convinced that the benefits of taking part in such an attack justify the costs of doing so when it comes to the regional consequences and the effects on its security interests. If it does begin, and if it does begin to be an indicator of how the alliance is actually set up five months into a conflict both sides say they are winning, but ordinary Iranians and perhaps two-thirds of the American public appear to be counting the price.The chart above shows the evolution of Brent crude prices during the war's course: the pre-war price level, the surge above $115 after the South Pars strikes, the easing toward $71 in the summer when ceasefire hopes were growing and the renewed rally now that an energy-infrastructure campaign is once again on the table for a weekend.