Why the Iran ceasefire may have shifted the dynamics back in Trump's favor

Trita Parsi

Apr 14, 2026

https://tritaparsi.substack.com/p/why-the-iran-ceasefire-may-have-shifted

Diplomacy between Washington and Tehran has not yet unraveled, despite JD Vance’s theatrical departure from last week’s talks in Islamabad. Trump now signals that the two sides could reconvene within days in the Pakistani capital. Whether negotiators return to the table or continue their exchanges through quieter, remote channels before the ceasefire lapses, one reality appears to have shifted: Trump has clawed back a measure of momentum—and with it, leverage—over Iran, largely by virtue of the ceasefire. Here’s why.

Trump entered this moment politically cornered and strategically constrained. Surging gasoline prices were inflicting acute domestic pain, eroding his standing at home. More critically, he faced a barren escalation ladder. Each conceivable move—strikes on Iran’s oil infrastructure, attacks on civilian targets, the seizure of Persian Gulf islands, or covert operations to capture enriched uranium—carried the near-certainty of forceful Iranian retaliation. Such responses would not merely match his escalation but compound it, deepening his economic exposure, amplifying political risk, and entangling him further in a perilous and unwinnable strategic bind.

Nor could he simply extricate the United States from the conflict on his own terms. Absent an understanding with Tehran, Iran retained both the capacity and the incentive to continue targeting Israel and vulnerable U.S. assets across the Gulf. Trump needed Iran’s permission to get out of the war.

The ceasefire, however, has subtly altered that equation. Trump may no longer need a formal nod from Tehran to step back. If he disengages now—without a comprehensive agreement—Iran will almost certainly maintain its grip over the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic setback for Washington. Yet Tehran is unlikely to resume direct military operations against U.S. targets in the Persian Gulf. To do so, in the absence of renewed American strikes, would cast Iran as the aggressor, inviting severe and potentially coordinated repercussions—not only from Washington but from wary global powers such as Russia and China.

Moreover, the balance of needs has tilted. Iran now appears to need an agreement more than the United States does. Trump has already secured his central objective—the escape from a war he was ill-advised to begin—while Iran, despite accruing leverage through its command of the Strait, remains far from realizing its broader ambitions: meaningful sanctions relief, a definitive and enduring end to hostilities, and perhaps even the contours of a more stable, constructive relationship with Washington.

Tehran’s decision to dispatch its largest, most senior, and most expansive delegation to Islamabad for direct talks with the American vice president reflected a striking confidence—that it occupied its strongest negotiating position vis-à-vis the United States since 1979. Yet to convert that moment of perceived ascendancy into little more than a cessation of U.S. bombardment would fall short of its aspirations. Even if Washington were to acquiesce to Iran’s control of the Strait, such an outcome would pale against the far more consequential gains Tehran believes are within reach.

Instead, Iran needs to translate this leverage not only into a durable end to the war, but ideally, into a new peace: One that delivers sweeping sanctions relief and inaugurates a more stable, mutually defined economic and political relationship with Washington. Such an arrangement would serve as a bulwark against renewed conflict. The economic imperative is especially stark: sanctions relief is indispensable to reconstruct a country now burdened with damage running into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

As I have argued before, sanctions relief is not merely an economic demand—it is a strategic necessity. Without it, Iran risks a condition of chronic erosion, a slow but steady weakening that would leave it exposed. That vulnerability, in turn, could invite further attacks. It was, after all, the misperception of Iranian weakness that helped open the window for initial strikes.

But Trump does not, in any fundamental sense, require any of this. The United States can endure without a formal agreement with Iran and without the benefits of an economic relationship with Tehran. To be sure, a negotiated settlement would better serve long-term American interests: the nuclear constraints Trump seeks can only be credibly secured at the negotiating table. Abruptly abandoning diplomacy while leaving Iran in undisputed control of the Strait would also unsettle key regional allies. Yet these are strategic preferences, not immediate necessities.

Trump’s calculus is far more transactional and far less patient. He can point to the damage already inflicted on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and conventional forces, proclaim a hollow victory, and disengage. He has already emphasized that the United States no longer depends on Persian Gulf oil, insulating it from the direct economic consequences of Iran’s toll regime. As a result, the burden shifts outward: the Strait becomes a problem for European and Asian powers—countries that Trump has noted declined to rally to his side when he sought their help in prying the waterway from Tehran’s grip.

The window now open offers Tehran a chance to convert battlefield leverage into lasting strategic gain. To let it close would mean forfeiting not just incremental progress, but the possibility of reshaping its economic and geopolitical position. By contrast, the United States, having already secured a tenuous exit ramp through the ceasefire, has less at stake in the short term. Walking away, therefore, is politically and strategically easier for Trump than for his Iranian counterparts. Both can live with diplomatic failure, but Tehran has more gains to lose.

How Tehran chooses to navigate this narrowing corridor—whether it presses its advantage or overplays its hand—will be interesting to see.

We Are the Barbarians

The president’s threat to annihilate Iranian civilization took America to a dark place.

Harrison Berger

Apr 10, 2026

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/we-are-the-barbarians/

On Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to declare that “a civilization will die tonight.” By 8 p.m., the U.S. announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran had begun. Whether the ceasefire holds (or even takes hold) is already in question—Iran and the U.S. appear to be offering contradictory accounts of what the 10-point plan they allegedly agreed to actually says. The best hope that it might stick comes from Israel, where TV presenters who spent Monday salivating over a clock counting down the minutes and hours until Trump’s planned genocide of Iranians were left confused and outraged when the president backed down shortly before the deadline.

But whether or not Trump ultimately goes as far as the Israelis would like him to, Americans must now reckon with the destruction already carried out in our name, the civilization-destroying actions Trump has threatened, and the barbarians we have become in the process.

As Tucker Carlson, the most prominent critic of the war with Iran, pointed out in his viral monologue Monday, there was very little that was American or Western about Trump's threat to destroy an entire civilization. That is not to say the U.S. government hasn't committed serious crimes before, including wars of aggression. As a study published in The Lancet, a scientific journal, found, U.S. and European sanctions have killed 38 million people since 1971. But those shameful actions were at least concealed behind a pretext, not declared outright as the objective itself. Though it may seem like a distinction without a difference, Carlson convincingly argues it matters significantly. By abandoning even the aspiration of higher laws, we have embraced the “law of the jungle,” which is “a brutal and unforgiving law” that will not stop at Iran's borders. “We know from history that the things you do will be done unto you,” Carlson said. “Once you set a standard, you will have to live by that standard.”

Indeed, Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization was not an expression of American values but the purest expression, and logical endpoint, of an ideology the United States has attached itself to under both Joe Biden and now Trump: Zionism and the Greater Israel project, first through U.S. support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, and most recently through the joint war of aggression against Iran.

And while the American taxpayers forced to fund those wars are told they are fought on our behalf to save “civilization,” it is now impossible to think of any force in recent history more destructive and threatening to civilization than the Greater Israel project—which wages an ISIS-style campaign to destroy every artifact, center of knowledge, and source of beauty in the region, and does so with American weapons, American servicemembers, and American money.

The record of what has already been destroyed provides evidence that the U.S. and Israel wish to do exactly to Iran what ISIS and its various backers did to Syria. According to Iran's minister of cultural heritage, U.S. and Israeli strikes have damaged more than 131 historical sites across the country including museums, palaces, and UNESCO-listed landmarks, with the heaviest losses in Tehran. Among the centuries-old structures destroyed by U.S.–Israeli bombs is Iran’s Golestan Palace, a UNESCO World Heritage site; the Chehel Sotoun pavilion in Isfahan, a 17th-century monument from the Safavid period; the Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque, one of the architectural jewels of the Islamic world; and the Fin Garden in Kashan, one of Iran's oldest surviving gardens which dates to the late 16th century. Dozens of universities and research centers have been struck, including the Iran University of Science and Technology, Isfahan University of Technology, and Sharif University of Technology, “Iran's MIT,” whose computer science center was reduced to rubble. A Tehran synagogue was also struck on Passover.

Our descent into barbarism has long been in the making, and the fingerprints all over that transformation are recognizably Israeli. One of the earliest signs of our transition came when the “War Department” began posting drone strike footage, often as memes, on social media. Where the government once prosecuted WikiLeaks and scrambled to conceal its war footage out of embarrassment, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's Pentagon now shamelessly publishes such imagery on its own initiative, a direct import from Israel, which pioneered the model of broadcasting its own war crimes during the assault on Gaza. More recently, Israel-firsters like Laura Loomer and Mark Levin were the loudest voices pushing Trump toward escalation and cheering him on as he threatened civilizational annihilation. Loomer, whom Trump reportedly solicits for advice, called on him to channel Curtis LeMay, the general whose fanatical bloodlust inspired Dr. Strangelove and who came within a hair of igniting nuclear war. Levin, for his part, arguably insinuated on his Fox News television show that dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran would be justified.

Whether or not the ceasefire holds, Americans will have to reckon with what has already been done in our name, and with the fact that the Israel-firsters who cheered every escalation have not been removed from their positions of influence. They remain right in the president’s ear, defining not just his second term but the international symbol of

Think the Iran war is a disaster? Blame these DC think tanks first.

We asked AI to find the conflict's biggest boosters in Washington. Surprise: many are connected to Israel and pushed for the invasion of Iraq too.

Jim Lobe

Apr 14, 2026

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-war-think-tanks/?mc_cid=32af8f69f1&mc_eid=944feb3e1c

If the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran is ultimately assessed as a defeat, some measure of blame could be cast on five pro-Israel “think tanks” that consistently promoted military action against the Islamic Republic in the eight months before it began, according to analyses by four different widely used AI programs.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Hudson Institute, and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) ranked among the top six think tanks identified by the AI models as the “most prominent in promoting military action against Tehran” during the period between the “Twelve-Day War” in June 2025 and the current war’s launch on February 28.

A fifth think tank, the more traditionally right-wing Heritage Foundation, was also included by three of the apps as among the top six think tanks promoting military actions against Iran.

Unsurprisingly, four platforms – Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok – identified the same five Washington-based institutions as also having played leading roles in promoting the U.S. invasion of Iraq 23 years ago.

Of the five, FDD, AEI, Hudson, and WINEP fall squarely into the neoconservative camp of U.S. foreign policy hawks in that support for Israel is a central principle of their world views and work. Indeed, the organization that claimed the top spot for prominence in promoting war against Iran in all four AI apps was FDD, whose original submission to the IRS in 2001 described its mission as “provid(ing) education to enhance Israel’s image in North America and the public’s understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations.”

The Heritage Foundation — which identifies itself as pursuing an “America First” foreign policy — has long promoted close ties with Israel. A “Special Report” published by Heritage in March 20025 called for transforming U.S.-Israeli relations from a mere “special relationship” to a “strategic partnership.”

“Experts” from all five organizations repeatedly propounded some or all of the same themes — that Iran’s nuclear program and missile arsenal posed an unacceptable threat to Israel and eventually to the U.S. homeland, that the regime was still “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” and that it was at the weakest point since the 1979 Revolution.

They pressed these points in congressional testimony, on the op-ed and news pages of major print and online publications, in broadcast television and radio interviews, and on social media, notably X, in what were clearly efforts to persuade elites and the public to accept the necessity of military action against the Islamic Republic. These arguments echoed the same themes as those propagated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as well-known pro-Israel hawks in the U.S. Congress, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, in their appearances on U.S. broadcast media.

As can be seen in the table below, three of the AI apps identified several additional neoconservative-led think tanks among the six most prominent promoters of military action, including the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy (CSP), and the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), which was founded by neoconservative military analyst Kimberly Kagan in 2007. “While ISW positions itself as analytical rather than explicitly advocacy-oriented, its framing of Iranian threats consistently supported the case for military actions,” according to Claude.

Over the past quarter century, the foreign policy orientation of FDD, AEI, Hudson, JINSA, and CSP has been hardline neoconservative; their positions, particularly with respect to the Middle East, have generally reflected the views of Netanyahu’s Likud Party. WINEP, which was created in 1985 as a spin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, hosts fellows with a more diverse range of views, especially regarding Israeli-Palestinian relations.

ChatGPT also included the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Atlantic Council (AC), which it described as “mainstream security think tanks,” among the six most prominent war promoters. Regarding CSIS, ChatGPT noted that its position was “often framed as ‘strategic analysis,’ but many publications discuss feasibility and strategic benefits of military strikes.” As for the Atlantic Council, ChatGPT said, “Mixed views internally, but several fellows have supported military action as a deterrent.”

All four apps were asked to “identify the ten U.S. think tanks that were most prominent in U.S. print media, broadcast media, online media, and social media in promoting a U.S. attack on Iran between July 1, 2025, and February 27, 2026, in order of prominence.”

Each defined “prominence” in its own way. ChatGPT, for example, defined it as “the institutions most consistently visible” in the various media, while Grok ranked only those “whose experts dominated congressional testimony on Iran, produced supportive op-eds/policy papers, appeared on broadcast panels justifying or advancing strikes/escalation, and drove online/social-media content framing the actions as necessary for regime weakening or surrender.” Unlike the other apps that ranked ten think tanks, Grok identified only six, noting that the “top tier (was) clear but that the prominence of others in the media that could be characterized as “pure ‘promotion’” drops sharply after #6…”

These were the results:

The four apps were then asked, “What is the overlap between these think tanks and those that promoted the military invasion of Iraq in the eight months prior to March 19, 2003?”

As noted by Gemini, “The overlap between the think tank environments of 2003 and 2026 is significant, as several institutions that provided the intellectual architecture for the Iraq War remained the primary drivers of the narrative favoring military action against Iran.”

While Grok cited FDD at the top, it bears noting that the group was only two years old in 2003 and worked very much in the shadow of more established neoconservative think tanks, of which AEI was clearly dominant due in large part to its “Prince of Darkness,” Richard Perle. Perle, who had served on the advisory or executive boards of FDD, WINEP, Hudson, CSP, and JINSA, and was a charter signatory in 1997 of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) along with the most determined champions of invading Iraq inside the future George W. Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Elliott Abrams, all of whom Perle had worked with going back to the 1970s.

Given these well-established connections and as Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board in the run-up to the invasion, Perle and his neoconservative collaborators played a unique role, from both within and outside the administration, in building and enhancing an echo chamber whose coordinated messaging resonated much more effectively with the mass media and the public at large than was the case in the run-up to U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.

Compared to the most prominent Iran hawks, “the Iraq promoters were a tighter neoconservative core (AEI, Heritage, Hudson, CSP, PNAC, FDD) focused on regime change, WMD fears, and post-9/11 opportunity,” according to Grok. Those themes helped prepare the ground and effectively amplified the messaging coming out of the Bush White House and the Pentagon, particularly between Cheney’s American Legion speech in August 2002, in which he stressed the (non-existent) nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and the March 2003 invasion.

By 2005, it had become abundantly clear that the invasion had turned into a quagmire, and the neoconservative hawks within the administration, including Wolfowitz and his undersecretary of defense for policy and Perle protege Douglas Feith were effectively purged, joining Cheney’s national security adviser, Scooter Libby, on the outside. (Both Feith and Libby retreated to Hudson.) PNAC dissolved itself early in 2006, while Rumsfeld was gone by the end of that year.

In May 2007, FDD hosted an all-expenses paid weekend workshop at the Our Lacaya Resort in Freeport, Bahamas, attended by more than two dozen mainly neoconservative luminaries from various think tanks and media entitled “Confronting the Iranian Threat: The Way Forward.” Soon after, two Perle proteges, Reuel Marc Gerecht and the late Michael Ledeen – both fixtures at AEI’s standing-room-only “black coffee briefings,” in the run-up to the Iraq invasion – moved to FDD, which, according to Claude, has become “effectively the successor-vehicle for the Iraq War neoconservative network, rebranded and refocused on Iran.” Grok noted, however, that FDD “has since scrubbed some pre-[Iraq] war content, but archives confirm its role in the echo chamber.” The torch had passed.

But “(t)he personnel and ideological continuity (revolving doors to government, threat inflation, media amplification) is striking,” according to Grok. “(T)he same networks drove both campaigns two decades apart.”

The War Is Turning Iran into a Major World Power

April 6, 2026,

By Robert A. Pape

Dr. Pape is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago who studies military strategy and international security.

NYT

https://archive.ph/ekfuM

In recent years, the conventional geopolitical wisdom has been that the world order was moving toward three centers of power: the United States, China and Russia. That view assumed that power derived primarily from economic scale and military capability.

That assumption no longer holds. A fourth center of global power is quickly emerging — Iran — that does not rival those three nations economically or militarily. Instead, its newfound power derives from its control over the most important energy choke point in the global economy, the Strait of Hormuz.

The strait had long been an international waterway through which ships from all countries could travel. But the joint military campaign that the United States and Israel began waging against Iran this year has prompted Iran to create a selective military blockade of the strait.

Roughly one-fifth of the world’s supply of oil and liquefied natural gas moves through the strait. There are no real alternatives to these supply routes in the near term. If Iranian control over the strait persists for months or years, as I believe it may, it will drastically reshape the global order to the detriment of the United States.

Many analysts believe that Iran’s grip on the Strait of Hormuz is only temporary. A widespread expectation is that U.S. and allied naval forces will soon stabilize the situation and that oil flows will resume along familiar lines.

That expectation is flawed. It assumes that to continue to control the strait, Iran must physically close it off. But as we have already seen, you can control the strait without closing it. Today, the strait remains open to tankers. Traffic has dropped by over 90 percent since the war began, though, not because Iran has been sinking every vessel that entered the strait, but because, given the credible threat of an attack, insurers withdrew or repriced war-risk coverage. Hitting a cargo ship every few days was more than enough to make the risk unacceptable.

Modern economies do not simply require oil. They also require oil delivered on time, at scale and with predictable risk. When that reliability breaks down, insurance markets tighten, freight rates spike and governments begin to look at energy access as a complex strategic challenge rather than a simple market transaction.

The problem for the United States is one of asymmetry. Protecting each and every oil shipment that passes through the Strait of Hormuz against potential attacks — mines, drones, missile strikes — is a full-time operation. It requires continuous military presence. Iran needs only to hit an oil tanker once in a while to cast doubt on the reliability of the world’s oil shipments.

President Emmanuel Macron of France said as much on Thursday when he declared that it was “unrealistic” to open the Strait of Hormuz by force and that “this can only be done in concert with Iran.” He was all but admitting that the flow of oil cannot be guaranteed without Iran’s agreement.

For decades, the Persian Gulf had a simple arrangement: Oil producers exported, markets priced and the United States secured the route. That system allowed rivalry without instability. Now, it is falling apart.

Gulf states depend heavily on energy exports for state revenue. When insurance rates spike and shipping become uncertain, the fiscal impact is immediate. Governments adjust. Cargoes are rerouted. Contracts are renegotiated.

If uncertainty persists, the Gulf arrangement will inevitably change, giving way to a different regional order — one in which the Gulf states increasingly accommodate the actor that can most directly influence the reliability of their exports. That actor is now Iran.

The global consequences will be most pronounced in Asia. Japan, South Korea and India depend heavily on Gulf energy. China, though more diversified, also depends on the region for a large share of its energy imports. Those dependencies are embedded in infrastructure — refineries, shipping routes and storage systems that cannot be quickly reconfigured.

If disruption to the energy supply persists, the effects will be widespread. Higher insurance and freight costs will raise prices. Trade balances will worsen. Currencies will weaken. Inflation will rise. Energy dependence will begin to shape policy. Governments will prioritize access to energy. Diplomatic choices will narrow. Actions that risk further instability will become harder to sustain. A 1970s world in which oil shocks lead to years of stagflation will no longer be a distant memory but a nearing reality.

Again, Iran will benefit.

China depends on Gulf energy to sustain growth. Russia benefits from higher and more volatile energy prices. Iran gains leverage from its position at the Hormuz choke point.

Each of these three nations has incentives that run counter to the economic stability of the United States and its allies. These three nations do not need to coordinate in a formal way. The structure of the system pushes them in the same direction. This is how a new order emerges — not through a formal alliance (at least not at first), but through converging incentives that reinforce one another over time.

Other plausible scenarios in the emerging new world order are darker still. Imagine Iran with control of about 20 percent of the world’s oil, Russia with about 11 percent and China able to soak up much of that supply. They would form a cartel to deny the West 30 percent of the world’s oil. You don’t need sophisticated analysis to recognize the catastrophic consequences: precipitously declining power for the United States and Europe, and a global shift toward China, Russia and Iran.

The United States faces a difficult choice: either commit to a long-term effort to reassert control over the Strait of Hormuz or accept a new global energy arrangement in which U.S. control is no longer assured.

If it chooses acceptance, the outcome is clear: The international system will reorganize with Iran as a fourth center of global power. Yet if the United States chooses to reassert military control, it is in for a long battle, one it could well lose.

The Iran war is not a military conflict from which the United States can simply back out, with things reverting to how they were before. Iran would surely demand a heavy price in a new accommodation with the United States — but this price will surely be less costly than that of the alternative future. This is a transformational war, and if these changes continue for even a few years, the global order will change irrevocably.

 

Trump announces Strait of Hormuz blockade after US-Iran peace talks end

US Navy to enforce blockade, Trump says after condemning Iran for blocking waterway and complaining no agreement reached in Islamabad.

By Al Jazeera Staff

Published On 12 Apr 2026

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/12/trump-announces-strait-of-hormuz-blockade-after-us-iran-peace-talks-end

President Donald Trump says the United States Navy will begin blockading the Strait of Hormuz “immediately” after peace talks between the US and Iran in Pakistan ended without an agreement.

Trump, in a social media post on Sunday, accused Iran of “extortion” and said the US Navy would hunt down and interdict ships in international waters that have paid Iran a toll to traverse the strait.

“So, there you have it, the meeting went well, most points were agreed to, but the only point that really mattered, NUCLEAR, was not,” Trump said. “Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz.”

Iran has essentially taken control over the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for the global energy market, since the US and Israel launched a war on Iran on February 28.

Traffic through the narrow strait has slowed to a trickle, nearly paralysing about one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas shipments and sending shockwaves through the global economy.

Iran has denied US claims that two of its warships recently passed through the strait for mine-clearing operations, warning that any military vessels seeking to do so would receive a “strong response”. Trump called Iran’s control over the waterway “world extortion” in his social media post and added that any Iranian forces who fire at US forces or “peaceful vessels” would be “BLOWN TO HELL”.

He added that the blockade would involve unspecified “other countries” and he would not allow Iran to benefit from the closure of the strait.

Iran has continued to send its own ships through the strait since the war began and has allowed a handful of vessels from other countries to pass through. Iranian officials have also discussed setting up a toll system after the fighting ends whereby users would pay a fee to Iran for traversing the strait.

“I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran,” Trump said on Sunday. “No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas.”

 

Iran says it ‘would be dumb’ for US to let Netanyahu kill diplomacy

In an implicit response to JD Vance, Iran’s Abbas Araghchi warns of the repercussions of Israel’s attacks on Lebanon.

By Al Jazeera Staff

Published On 9 Apr 2026

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/9/iran-says-it-would-be-dumb-for-us-to-let-netanyahu-kill-diplomacy

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said that it would be “dumb” for the United States to allow Israel to jeopardise the regional ceasefire by continuing its intense attacks on Lebanon, which have killed hundreds of people since the truce came into effect.

On Thursday, Araghchi noted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trial will resume on Sunday. He suggested that the Israeli leader has an ulterior motive for continuing the fighting.

“A region-wide ceasefire, incl in Lebanon, would hasten his jailing,” Araghchi wrote on social media.

He then added a message for the US, which has denied that Lebanon was included in the original ceasefire.

“If the US wishes to crater its economy by letting Netanyahu kill diplomacy, that would ultimately be its choice. We think that would be dumb but are prepared for it,” Araghchi wrote.

His comment mirrors language used by US Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday. Vance had warned against Iranians letting the ceasefire fall apart over Lebanon, saying, “We think that would be dumb, but that’s their choice.”

Since the ceasefire was announced on Tuesday, the disagreement over whether it applies to Lebanon has become a major threat to the future of the truce.

Iranian officials and media outlets have suggested that Tehran may respond militarily to the Israeli assault on Lebanon or block the Strait of Hormuz to ensure the ceasefire applies to Lebanon.

On Thursday, Trump said he told the Israeli government to scale back its operations in Lebanon.

“I spoke with Bibi [Netanyahu], and he’s going to low-key it. I just think we have to be sort of a little more low-key,” he told NBC News.

Vance also said on Wednesday that the Israelis agreed to “check themselves a little bit in Lebanon”.

But after one of the bloodiest days in Lebanon’s history, there appears to be no letup in the Israeli assault. The death toll from the recent Israeli bombardment has already exceeded 300 people.

Israel launched several new deadly attacks in Lebanon on Thursday, including a strike that killed four rescuers in the southern town of Borj Qalaouiye.

Israeli forces have also issued a displacement order for Beirut’s Jnah area, home to two of the largest hospitals in the country, as well as tens of thousands of residents and displaced people.

The US has a history of claiming that Israel has agreed to curb its military attacks, only to see further strikes unfold.

For example, in 2024, the administration of former President Joe Biden insisted for months that Israel was only launching a “limited” operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah.

But the Israeli military ultimately destroyed nearly every structure in Rafah — a scorched-earth strategy that Israeli officials now say they want to replicate in south Lebanon to ensure the permanent displacement of the population.

The conflict in Lebanon turned into an all-out war in early March, after Hezbollah fired rockets in response to Israeli strikes, as well as the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on February 28.

Israel has launched near-daily attacks in Lebanon since a separate November 2024 ceasefire, including widespread attacks on civilian infrastructure.

For peace with Iran to work a reckoning with Israel is in order

Trump must get back to basics, and his promises to the American people. In order to do that he must put this relationship in its proper place.

James R. Webb

Apr 09, 2026

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-ceasefire/

The two-week ceasefire between Tehran and Washington — at least for right now — is allowing a collective global exhale following an intense month of war. As of Wednesday, oil markets were rebounding, with prices dropping significantly from their record highs above $150 per barrel.

Domestically, perhaps a rare sigh of relief from coast to coast, as the most unpopular U.S. war in a century headed for a pause instead of the unprecedented escalation promised by President Donald Trump’s “a whole civilization will die tonight” Truth Social post.

But a durable peace and an end to this war are not guaranteed. Cracks are already showing over what was agreed and what was not by both sides, and accusations of violations are afoot.

Furthermore, America’s relations and reputation are severely damaged worldwide. Ensuring peace and fixing these relationships is where the hard work begins.

Arguably, the most important part of preventing a restart of the war before May is ensuring that our relationship with Israel returns to its rightful order. The U.S. is not a tool to be used to further Israeli regional ambitions. It should never go to war on behalf of any foreign government.

The most recent escalation by Israel in Lebanon, which should be noted, shows a flagrant lack of respect for Washington, and also underscores a pattern that is as evident as it is problematic: a seemingly deliberate attempt to prevent or undermine the ability of the U.S. to negotiate with Iran. Thus, it prevents the administration from acting independently and in the sole interest of the American people, which the Constitution charges it to do.

It is important to note two facts that underpin the dire need for U.S. foreign policy to move in this direction.

First, the U.S. did not go to war in the interest of of the American people. Rather, the stated rationale by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and others, on Feb. 28, was that Israel was going to attack Iran; therefore, we needed to join them to protect our troops stationed in the region (Rubio has since walked his remarks back). But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had made several visits to the U.S. seeking Trump's buy in for new strikes since Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025.

Especially egregious was the conflict, which was launched in the middle of U.S.-Iranian negotiations, opened with the targeted killing of Iran's head of state Ayatollah Khomeini and several members of his immediate family.

Second, Israel’s track record of adhering to ceasefire agreements, especially as of late, has been abysmal. Since the declaration of a ceasefire in Gaza on Oct. 10, 2025, Israel has violated the ceasefire agreement at least 2,073 times, and this data only runs through March 18, 2026. Coupled with this fact is the government's proclivity for assassination. In this war alone, the Israelis have taken out no less than 12 Iranian leaders.

Simply put, this presents a pattern that is not only inconsistent with American values and historical precedent but also at odds with how we fight wars. Each one of these targeted actions appears at face value to not only prevent de-escalation, but more importantly, to entrench the U.S. in a conflict by eliminating those within Iran who are moderate enough to negotiate. Despite what Trump says about a new, more “reasonable” crop of leaders replacing their dead counterparts, experts say the opposite is the case.

Further, they are actions that contradict the Pentagon's Laws of Armed Conflict Manual (Sec. 5.21, Overview of Good Faith, Perfidy, and Ruses). More importantly, it runs in contrast to the entire Western-based system of war that is rooted in 1648’s Treaty of Westphalia. The U.S. has not only followed this precedent but agreed to be party to numerous other agreements, including, but not limited to, the New York Convention of 1973, which criminalizes assassinating leaders and other “internationally protected persons.”

Part of the rationale is obviously simple: killing leadership makes it more difficult to negotiate.

In short, the assassination campaign, along with following a client state to war, is not a feature of American warfare or policy. But instead, it is a bug inserted into our operating system that must be removed, both to ensure a durable peace and to reclaim our national honor and reputation. Doing so will not necessarily be easy, but it is straightforward.

Israeli leadership must be reminded where their financial and military aid comes from and that this relationship is not a blank check. The U.S. and its taxpayers are their financial and military guarantors. Without our backing, their security is in serious jeopardy. Therefore, to maintain their security, they need to play by our rules and adhere to our principles. Otherwise, this relationship could end.

As a note, the U.S. public opinion of Israel has a low point, and a new generation of Americans is coming of age politically with a very cynical mindset of this relationship. It is very much in Netanyahu's interest to correct this through action rather than messaging.

Once our relationship with Israel is put into proper order, we can move on to repairing key global relationships that the war with Iran has severely damaged. Perhaps the most important and least discussed are those in Asia.

While there was much discussion about how closing the Strait of Hormuz negatively impacted China, as if Trump were playing some form of 4D chess, the reality is quite different. Trump’s lambasting of Australia, South Korea, and Japan for not helping open Hormuz militarily has undoubtedly negatively impacted U.S. influence in that region. Further, the impacts of economic disruption on these three countries, which are key players in the U.S. security strategy vis-a-vis China, cannot be overstated.

Despite the challenges ahead for the U.S. in securing a durable peace, there is perhaps a massive potential political opportunity for President Trump to fulfill a campaign promise.

A core promise that attracted independents and conservatives, and arguably was the single biggest driver of both of his electoral victories, was the removal of American troops from the Middle East. Preventing the continuation of, or yet another war with the U.S. is arguably Iran's most meaningful demand, and perhaps the most valuable for the U.S. at the bargaining table.

At this juncture, American basing across the region only serves to pressure and threaten Iran, whose existence is not and never has been an existential threat to the U.S. homeland. Further, what better way for President Trump to demonstrate victory than to publicly declare that our objectives have been met and that the troops are coming home, thus making a splash heading into midterms?

Conversely, this move would give the Iranian leadership a face-saving card to play with their own people, demonstrating that their sacrifice is justified.

The road to a durable peace between the two countries will not be easy. It requires leadership in Washington to make tough decisions and exert power to restrain Israel, which they have not been apt to do. However, for the political survival of this administration, it is necessary and if done correctly, provides ample opportunity both heading into the midterms and in restoring international faith in Washington as a good-faith partner.