After another round of retaliation, Iran and Israel say they will hold off for now
Loading...
| London; and Tel Aviv, Israel
Iran and Israel renewed exchanges of direct fire overnight Sunday, effectively disrupting a fragile two-month ceasefire declared by President Donald Trump and risking a return to full-blown war.
The complex chain of tit-for-tat military actions, in Lebanon, and then between Iran and Israel, presented another challenge for Mr. Trump, who repeated his claim on Sunday that a peace deal was within reach.
It also underscored how Iran is seeking to reshape regional dynamics to its advantage, and ensure a comprehensive regional ceasefire that protects its strategic ally Hezbollah in Lebanon and that is not vulnerable to what it considers frequent Israeli and American violations.
Why We Wrote This
President Donald Trump keeps saying that a Middle East peace deal is close at hand. But a new round of direct attacks between Israel and Iran raises questions about when – and how – this war will ultimately come to an end.
By mid-afternoon Monday in Iran, the top military command headquarters, Khatam al-Anbiya, announced a cessation of operations. But it also warned that if Israeli attacks continue, “including in southern Lebanon,” then Iran’s response will be “more severe.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later said in a statement that he would “hold fire” against Iran, but warned that Israel would “respond powerfully” if Iran “made a mistake” and resumed attacks.
Meanwhile, Israelis raced to bomb shelters late Sunday when Iran launched an initial volley of ballistic missiles, just hours after Israel expanded its attacks against Hezbollah in the southern suburbs of Beirut. Iranian officials had warned that such a step by Israel would trigger an Iranian response, after weeks of Israeli occupation and fighting with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, despite a nominal ceasefire brokered by the United States.
Israel retaliated with airstrikes in Tehran and several other cities, defying Mr. Trump’s call to hold its fire in response to Iran’s barrage – the U.S. president said Sunday he was just days away from a negotiated end to the war against Iran, which the U.S. started jointly with Israel on Feb. 28. Among Israel’s latest targets was Iran’s petrochemical complex at Mahshahr in the southwest of the country.
The Israel Defense Forces – which said its own Sunday strikes on Beirut’s southern suburb of Dahieh were a response to earlier Hezbollah attacks on northern Israel – stated that it will “not allow” Iran to “create a new equation” by responding directly to Israeli attacks in Lebanon.
The IDF said it would “continue to operate throughout Lebanon and will intensify its actions” against Hezbollah.
Analysts say the recent strikes by Iran against Israel aim to codify claims by Iranian officials that Lebanon – and the fate of its Hezbollah ally – must be treated as part of the Islamic Republic’s broader conflict with the U.S. and Israel. This includes issues from Iran’s nuclear program to its control over the Strait of Hormuz.
“Tehran’s decision to answer a strike on Lebanon with missiles launched from its own soil is the operative development here,” says Hamidreza Azizi, an Iranian security expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, in an analysis on X.
That decision “gives concrete form” to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s “earlier formulation that the ceasefire applies on all fronts, and that its violation on one front is a violation on all. For weeks, this remained a rhetorical position, but [Sunday] Tehran attached a cost to it.
“The choice of instrument matters as much as the decision to act. Iran responded directly, with its own missiles, rather than through Hezbollah or other members of the Axis of Resistance,” wrote Dr. Azizi. “This continues a pattern that has defined the war: as the regional network has thinned, the missile force has become Tehran’s primary tool for direct retaliation and coercive signaling.”
In Israel, where Mr. Netanyahu faces an election in October, the decision to retaliate against Iran was striking, after Mr. Trump publicly stated, before a phone call with Mr. Netanyahu, that he was against any Israeli counterattack.
“I call all the shots,” the Financial Times newspaper quoted Mr. Trump saying about Mr. Netanyahu. “He doesn’t call the shots.” Since the middle of last year, Mr. Trump has reportedly called on Mr. Netanyahu to rein in some Israeli military operations, from Iran to Lebanon, if they appeared likely to jeopardize the president’s own truce efforts.
Despite Mr. Trump’s public statements, Israeli retaliation was “probably coordinated to an extent” with the U.S., says Daniel Sobelman, assistant professor of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
“I don’t think that Netanyahu would have just flat-out defied Trump,” he says.
“What Iran is trying to do is safeguard Hezbollah and restrict Israel’s latitude in Lebanon vis-à-vis Hezbollah,” says Dr. Sobelman. “Even if we were not on the eve of this crucial election cycle, then it would have been very important for any prime minister in Israel to prevent the Iranians from establishing ... these new rules of the game, whereby every time Israel exceeds a certain level of escalation or behaves in a manner that Iran sees as a violation of the rules, [that] Iran retaliates with ballistic missiles.”
Schools in Israel were closed on Monday. Hospitals entered emergency mode, with many patients moved underground. Israelis were told to follow instructions from civil defense authorities regarding staying close to and entering safe rooms.
In Iran, the Iranian barrages were cast in terms broader than Lebanon. Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf – the speaker of Parliament and main liaison during current indirect talks with the U.S. – stated on social media that the American naval blockade of Iran, the “violation of agreements regarding Lebanon,” and the U.S. “green light” Sunday for Israel’s Beirut attacks had turned U.S. and Israeli assets into “legitimate targets.”
“This is Iran trying to establish the rules that we are going to see in the next few months, or few years,” Foad Izadi, a professor with close ties to the government at the University of Tehran, told the BBC.
“You cannot have Israel sabotaging the negotiations – this is obviously what Israelis are trying to do,” said Dr. Izadi. “We were supposed to have an agreement on Monday, according to Trump, and just a few days before that, they started hitting Beirut, knowing that this is a serious violation of the ceasefire that we were supposed to have.”
“The aim of the strike is to tell the other side that Iranians are not fools,” he said.
Hard-liners now hold the reins in Iran, after Israeli strikes in the first salvos of the war killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He was replaced by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who reportedly suffered severe injuries in the same attack that killed his father, as well as the top echelon of leaders and commanders.
These hard-liners have also argued that the military must continue attacks against Israel and U.S. forces to reestablish deterrence that would prevent future attacks.
Likewise, many in Israel argue that, with regime change in Iran unachieved, and Iran’s nuclear, missile, and regional ally networks still not fully destroyed, fighting should continue.
The ceasefire declared by the U.S. on April 8, after 40 days of conflict, was a “major mistake,” and the current escalation is a chance to “delete and correct what we have done before,” Oded Ailam, a former head of counterterrorism for Mossad and now a researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, told reporters Monday.
“Israel cannot do anything in Iran without consulting the big brother, which is America. ... Everything is coordinated with CENTCOM,” says Mr. Ailam, referring to U.S. Central Command.
“In a way, it serves the Americans, because the negotiations are right now [at a] stalemate, and this can be a leverage of the Americans,” he says.
The U.S., adds Mr. Ailam, will “leave it to the Israelis, and they will surely arrive after one day or two as the ... school master, saying: ‘Kids, enough is enough. We are going back to the negotiation table.’”