April 9, 2026

SHARE |

An Already Tenuous Ceasefire in Iran Hovers on the Verge of Collapse

AP Photo/Hassan Ammar

On Wednesday morning, hours after U.S. President Donald Trump announced a two-week ceasefire deal with Iran, Israel conducted a coordinated wave of strikes across Lebanon, reportedly launching about 100 airstrikes in 10 minutes, hitting Beirut, the Beqaa Valley and southern Lebanon. Many in the densely populated city of Beirut were caught off guard by the strikes, as Shehbaz Sharif, Pakistan’s Prime Minister and chief negotiator of Tuesday’s ceasefire, originally claimed that Lebanon was included in the deal, only for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to announce hours later that the ceasefire did not apply to the country. Israel’s strikes across Lebanon immediately placed doubt upon the already tenuous ceasefire. An Iranian official told Al Jazeera that Tehran would “punish Israel” for what it viewed as violations of the ceasefire, while Iranian state media similarly reported that Iran would withdraw from the agreement if Israeli attacks on Lebanon continued. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that the terms were “clear and explicit.” However, White House officials contended that Lebanon had never been a part of the original agreement. Trump told PBS’s Liz Landers that fighting in Lebanon “was a separate skirmish,” while Vice President JD Vance said Tehran had a “legitimate misunderstanding” in believing that the ceasefire terms applied to Lebanon. French President Emmanuel Macron also weighed in on the issue, stating how critical the situation in Lebanon is and insisting on the need for it to be included in the ceasefire.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) announced on X that it had targeted “Hezbollah headquarters, military arrays, & command-and-control centers.” Reporting from Al Jazeera said Israel struck nearly 10 locations in Beirut beyond the southern suburbs where Israeli strikes against Hezbollah strongholds are usually concentrated. Malcom Webb, an Al Jazeera English journalist reporting from the ground in Beirut, said that “many of today’s strikes are in an area that’s not widely seen as a Hezbollah stronghold.” The Israeli military had told The Times of Israel that Hezbollah had left those strongholds and was “repositioning toward northern Beirut and mixed areas in the city.” Webb also reported mass panic in the aftermath of the strikes: “people with injuries were running down the road, trying to seek help. People abandoned their cars in the traffic. People were shouting, children were crying.”

The scale of attacks against Lebanon has been the widest to date in this conflict. Some regional experts have compared the destruction to that of the 1982 Lebanon War. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ station in Lebanon (UNHCR Lebanon) decried the humanitarian toll that it was already observing on the ground, stating on X that “Deaths are mounting. Destruction is massive. Civilians are paying the price. Again.” Journalists have reported that hospitals in Lebanon were overwhelmed with the number of casualties, with urgent calls for doctors and blood donations being made over social media. While the number of dead and injured is expected to rise, at the time of writing, Lebanon’s civil defense has reported that at least 254 people were killed and about 1,165 were wounded. Images and videos streaming from the country shocked people watching around the world, with a gathering outcry to prevent further bloodshed.

Even if Lebanon was formally outside the deal, the scale of Israel’s strikes was likely to be viewed as escalatory, nonetheless. Israel’s strikes can be understood both as an effort to drive a wedge between Iran and its proxies and as a response to being allegedly sidelined in the original ceasefire discussions. The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel was informed of the deal only at the last minute and “wasn’t happy.” Netanyahu now seems determined to pursue a scorched earth policy in Lebanon, even if, or perhaps especially because it might, scuttle the ceasefire deal. At the same time, Iran is likely seeking to exploit and widen any existing tensions between the United States and Israel in an effort to divide the two allies.

Both the U.S. and Iran benefit from an off-ramp from the conflict. When asked if the ceasefire remained intact, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested that Iranian private and public statements differed, while confirming that a U.S. negotiating team was still scheduled to travel to Islamabad for weekend talks. In attempting to affirm the viability of the ceasefire, Leavitt also said that they had “seen an uptick in traffic in the Strait today.” The Strait of Hormuz is central to the ceasefire, with Trump warning that the deal depends on “the Islamic republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz.” Despite the White House’s claims, on the ground, as of Wednesday, the situation remains essentially unchanged for tankers: broadcasts have been received by tankers that they will be destroyed if they attempt to transit before receiving permission by Iranian officials.

The Strait's closure throughout the conflict by the IRGC effectively became Iran’s primary leverage over the United States since the start of Operation Epic Fury. Even if the Strait reopens during this ceasefire period, it is unlikely that transits will return to pre-war levels. According to the Financial Times, the IRGC seeks to levy a toll of one USD per barrel transiting the waterway, to be paid in bitcoin, a cryptocurrency. This strategy likely serves not only to replenish its war chests but also to challenge the petrodollar system that has been in place over the last five decades. When asked by journalists about such toll, U.S. President Trump suggested it could serve as a “joint venture,” which he considers “a beautiful thing,” though analysts have called this notion naive. Hours later, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a briefing that tolls weren’t a “definitively accepted” policy position, and while Trump proposed a joint venture, he would like to see the Strait reopened “without limitation.” Unease among shipping companies persisted throughout the first day of the tenuous ceasefire, with groups like the Norwegian Shipowners Association expressing hesitation about crossing the Strait any time soon.

After the ceasefire went into effect, missiles and drones had been intercepted across the Arab Gulf states. Qatar announced that it intercepted seven ballistic missiles and many more drones since the ceasefire took effect. The UAE’s Ministry of Defense likewise announced that 17 ballistic missiles and 35 drones were intercepted after the ceasefire announcement. Similar reports from Kuwait and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have emerged. In the latter, Iranian missiles hit the East-West Crude Oil Pipeline, which connects Saudi oil fields in the East to the Red Sea, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. Whether the continued attacks are a result of the decentralized nature of the IRGC command and control, or whether these strikes have been the result of cells within the IRGC that disagree with the ceasefire agreement, is unclear at this time. Iran’s IRGC operates under 31 separate commands, which it calls its “mosaic defense architecture.” While this makes degrading Iran’s defense exceedingly difficult with semi-autonomous units that allow the IRGC to continue to function after decapitation strikes, it also means that they do not always act in lockstep. Early on in the Iran War, the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated that the IRGC was operating under pre-communicated objectives, stating that “Our military units are now, in fact, independent and somewhat isolated, and they are acting based on general instructions given to them in advance.”

Regardless of the reason for continued Iranian strikes, these continued hostilities launched at the Gulf states again casts a shadow over the alliance with the U.S. Early on in the war, Gulf states had expressed that they were not consulted about Operation Epic Fury and that they were carrying the brunt of retaliation of a military action they had not launched, already creating tension with the U.S. The current disintegrating ceasefire again appears to have been negotiated without any involvement of the Arab Gulf state partners. It is certain that these latest developments will put the reliability of the U.S. as an ally into question, and may further spur on proposals of new defense strategies.

The nuclear issue has been a prominent matter of contention since before the war began, arguably acting as a precursor to the war when Tehran and Washington could not come to an agreement after various rounds of talks surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. As of February, the International Atomic Energy Agency has claimed that Iran possesses about 440 kilograms, or 970 pounds, of 60 percent enriched uranium. According to Al Jazeera, an acceptance to its nuclear enrichment program makes up one condition of Iran’s 10-point plan, while Trump posted on Truth Social yesterday “that here will be no enrichment of uranium, and the United States will, working with Iran, dig up and remove all of the deeply buried (B-2 Bombers) Nuclear ‘Dust.’” Following Trump’s post, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said regarding Iran’s enriched uranium: “they’ll give it to us voluntarily ... Or if we have to do something else ourselves … we reserve that opportunity.” As such, it is clear that the nuclear issue will be an important topic in the negotiations scheduled to take place in Islamabad on Friday. Though Israel is not expected to attend the negotiations, it is still an interested party in the state of Iran’s nuclear program, as the trajectory of Iran’s nuclear capabilities determines Israel’s threat perception against Tehran. Though it is unclear what the outcome of the negotiations will be, the lack of any agreement over Iran’s enriched uranium could bring renewed military escalation.

As the ceasefire remains tenuous, the question over how long Iran and the U.S. can sustain open conflict lingers. According to reports from Reuters, which interviewed Iranian political insiders, the Iranian economy is “in tatters,” with “little prospect of rapid recovery, and an impoverished, embittered population.” One Iranian official told reporters that the country “will face a disaster” if sanctions are not eased. At the same time, U.S. public response to the war with Iran has been overwhelmingly negative. A Pew Research poll from March 25 found that 61 percent of Americans “disapprove of Trump’s handling of the conflict.” Pollsters also found that 40 percent of Americans believe the conflict will make the U.S. less safe, as opposed to 22 percent who say it will make the country safer. Americans have also begun to feel the economic effects of the conflict, with higher fuel and grocery prices. As these costs mount at home, the White House also feels pressure to end the conflict as soon as possible.