Temporary truce: On U.S.-Israel ceasefire with Iran
T he 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, announced by U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday, could strengthen the fragile two-week truce between the U.S. and Iran and improve the prospects for a broader diplomatic settlement. The war in Lebanon, launched on March 2, on the third day of the
U.S.-Israel war on Iran, has been a key sticking point in U.S.-Iran talks. When Mr. Trump announced the ceasefire with Tehran on April 8, both Iran and Pakistan, which mediated the truce, said the agreement also covered Lebanon. A ceasefire on all fronts was one of the 10 points Iran submitted to the U.S. as a framework for ending the war. But Israel, apparently dissatisfied with the U.S.-Iran deal, rejected a ceasefire with Lebanon and stepped up attacks, killing at least 200 people within 24 hours of the U.S.-Iran truce taking effect. Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who travelled to Islamabad to hold direct talks with a U.S. delegation headed by Vice President J.D. Vance, insisted that a ceasefire in Lebanon was a precondition for advancing diplomacy. The Islamabad talks failed to produce a breakthrough, but both sides remained engaged, communicating through Pakistan.
Yet, despite the truce, a fundamental problem remains. The war in Lebanon is not between Israel and the Lebanese army, but between Israel and Hezbollah. Hezbollah has not been part of the talks. Some Hezbollah leaders have said the party would halt attacking Israel if Israeli strikes stop. The Shia militant group has been weakened but is far from defeated. Israel has also said it would not withdraw troops from the territory it has seized in southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah insists on a return to pre-March 2 positions. Mr. Netanyahu says there is a ‘historic opportunity’ for a peace deal with Lebanon, but any such agreement is unlikely to include Hezbollah, which remains stronger than the Lebanese army and retains an extensive political and social network. While the ceasefire is now in effect, peace remains elusive. The wars on Iran and Lebanon should serve as a reminder to Israel of its own limitations. Mr. Netanyahu sought regime change in Iran and the disarmament of Hezbollah in Lebanon. As the U.S.-Israeli push for regime change in Iran faltered, prompting Mr. Trump to seek a negotiated exit from the Iran mess, Israel’s war with Hezbollah has also run into a wall. The ceasefire reflects this ground reality. If Mr. Trump wants a durable negotiated settlement with Iran based on a give-and-take formula, he must ensure that the ceasefire is sustained across all fronts.
- 1The U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon highlights the critical role of third-party mediation, with Pakistan facilitating talks between the U.S. and Iran. This complex diplomatic landscape involves state actors like Israel and Iran, and non-state actors like Hezbollah, whose exclusion from negotiations complicates prospects for a durable peace settlement and demonstrates the challenges of resolving proxy conflicts in the Middle East.
- 2The conflict raises significant questions under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), particularly regarding the distinction between combatants and civilians in Israel's attacks on Lebanon. The legal status of a non-state actor like Hezbollah, which controls territory and engages in armed conflict but is excluded from formal ceasefire negotiations, challenges traditional frameworks of international law governing peace agreements and the principle of state sovereignty.
- 3The ceasefire reflects the domestic political realities facing leaders like U.S. President Trump and Israeli PM Netanyahu, whose initial goals of regime change in Iran and disarming Hezbollah have faltered. The push for a negotiated settlement suggests a recalibration of foreign policy objectives driven by military limitations and the political need to exit from a prolonged, unwinnable conflict, showcasing the interplay between international strategy and internal governance pressures.
- 4The conflict has severe socio-economic consequences for Lebanon, with Israeli occupation of its southern territory and attacks causing significant civilian casualties and displacement. The continued strength of Hezbollah, which maintains an extensive political and social network, underscores how non-state actors can fill governance and social service gaps left by a weakened state, complicating post-conflict reconstruction and the re-establishment of state authority.
Related from CLAT Tribe Blogs
- US–Israel Strikes on Iran 2026: Everything a CLAT Aspirant Needs to Know
US–Israel strikes on Iran explained for CLAT 2027 aspirants. Timeline, key facts, India's response, global impact & expected questions — all in one place.