The recent escalation between Iran and Israel has once again exposed the fragility of the ceasefire regime in the Middle East, as well as the depth of contradictions in the relationship between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The exchange of rocket strikes in recent days has become a new test for this complex tie. Although the leaders jointly struck Iran in late February, their political and strategic interests have begun to diverge as the conflict has unfolded. The crisis demonstrates how easily a limited incident can grow into a wider war in a region trapped in a state of “neither war nor peace.”
In recent days Trump has emphasized his dominance in relations with Netanyahu, saying that he is the one making the key decisions in the Middle East. Those remarks came amid reports of a sharp rebuke the US leader delivered to the Israeli prime minister, warning him against steps that could undermine the regional stability Washington seeks to strengthen. However, subsequent events showed the limits of American influence: Netanyahu ordered an attack on a southern suburb of Beirut — a Hezbollah stronghold — which Tehran regarded as a violation of the ceasefire’s “red lines.”
The Israeli strike provoked an Iranian retaliatory rocket attack on Israel, followed by new Israeli strikes on Iranian territory. US intervention helped temporarily contain the escalation and prevent a full-scale war. Nevertheless, analysts say the region remains explosive: persistent tensions make any incident capable of triggering a new round of conflict. Experts describe the situation as highly unstable — with no durable peace and no lasting ceasefire.
The instability is fueled by divergent priorities between Trump and Netanyahu. The US administration faces global economic pressure from the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz and rising oil prices, which could damage Trump’s pre-election standing. At the same time, Netanyahu, facing upcoming elections, is forced to demonstrate his ability to handle security issues, which sometimes pushes him toward military escalation to strengthen his domestic political position. This difference in priorities prompts the Israeli leader to seek a political breakthrough through force, while Washington fears wider consequences.
An additional source of tension has been talks between Washington and Tehran conducted without Israel’s participation. According to leaks, a potential agreement could limit Iran’s nuclear program while placing constraints on Israel’s freedom of action in Lebanon against Hezbollah. Israel regards such concessions as unacceptable. Experts believe that for Netanyahu it would be politically more advantageous for the talks to fail and for the US to return to direct confrontation with Iran. Trump, for his part, would struggle to accept a deal resembling the 2015 agreement that he once sharply criticized. Thus, the fragile ceasefire depends on the ability of Washington, Tel Aviv and Tehran to simultaneously balance their political and military calculations, while the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu remains a mix of mutual influence and diverging interests.
News commentary
What is Hezbollah and what role does the group play in the conflict between Iran and Israel, especially in Lebanon? — Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shia political-military organization founded with Iranian support in 1982. Iran views it as a key element of the “axis of resistance” aimed at Israel and US influence in the Middle East. In the conflict with Israel, Hezbollah acts as Iran’s proxy: it has its own military arsenal, including long-range rockets, and conducts shelling of Israeli territories from southern Lebanon. For Iran, Hezbollah is a deterrent instrument that allows it to pressure Israel without direct involvement of Iranian forces. In Lebanon the group holds significant political influence and de facto control over some areas, making it a key player in regional tensions.
Why is the Strait of Hormuz considered strategically important for the global economy and how would its possible closure affect the US position in negotiations with Iran? — The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow maritime passage linking the Persian Gulf with the Indian Ocean. About 20–25% of the world’s oil shipments (roughly 17–20 million barrels per day) pass through it, making it critical to the global energy market. A possible closure of the strait by Iran (for example, in response to sanctions or military action) would trigger a sharp spike in oil prices, disruption of supplies and an economic crisis in many importing countries (including China, Japan and EU states). The US, as the main military guarantor of freedom of navigation, must factor this risk into negotiations with Iran: the threat of blocking the strait gives Tehran leverage to seek sanctions relief and concessions, while Washington seeks to avoid a military escalation that could affect the global economy.
What was the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) and why did President Trump criticize it, given its possible revival in current talks? — The JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) is an international agreement signed in 2015 between Iran and six world powers (the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China) and the EU. In exchange for sanctions relief, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program (reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, modify reactors and allow IAEA inspections) to make the development of a nuclear weapon impossible. President Trump criticized the JCPOA as a “terrible deal”: firstly, because it did not curb Iran’s ballistic missile development; secondly, because it did not address Iran’s support for proxy groups (such as Hezbollah); and thirdly, because its phased sanctions relief, in Trump’s view, provided Iran with too much funding without long-term guarantees. In 2018 Trump withdrew from the deal, leading to the re-imposition of sanctions and Iran’s resumption of uranium enrichment above permitted levels. Now, with talks resuming, the possible revival of the JCPOA (or its updated version) faces the same disagreements: Tehran demands full sanctions relief, while the US (including Trump’s supporters) insists on including Iran’s missile program and regional activities in the agreement.
Full version: غارديان: العلاقة المعقدة بين ترمب ونتنياهو تهدد هدنة الشرق الأوسط