I wouldn't assume that isn't a goal http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9688222
I would. Once Israel goes kinetic they're on their own playbook. We go from being in control to attempting to cajole a military power acting as if they're facing an existential threat into behaving in our best interests, rather than theirs, and it always gets sticky. No matter what we do, we lose prestige, we lose control, and we get condemned by half the Arab world for letting our dog off leash. Then Iran reefs up Hamas and Hezbollah, Qassams fall like rain, big ugly slow tanks crush into the occupied territories and suddenly we're mired knee-deep in brokering an end to Intifada. Our peace process with Iran has been protracted and byzantine but it hasn't been hot. Whenever Israel pulls the trigger shit gets dodgy. Remember - we lost 243 marines, a CIA station chief and Spooks-Only-Know what else simply by attempting to moderate Israel's attempt to moderate Lebanon's civil war. A US airstrike on Iran would likely be less destabilizing than an Israeli airstrike on Iran.
I know that what they call "the deep state" is what the rest of us call "a functioning government" and I know that if Steve Bannon et. al. could get the Israelis to bomb Iran they would already have done so. Foreign policy isn't carried out by Rick Perry and Rex Tillerson. It's carried out by arguewithatree and that one of the principle benefits of bureaucracy is its resilience to shock. The current administration may very much want to kick the anthill that is the Middle East but everyone they didn't appoint has a much better understanding of the risks and consequences than they do.