The Fragile Ceasefire and Netanyahu’s Gamble, Why Trump Must Rein in Israel
In the high-stakes theatre of West Asian geopolitics, ceasefires are rarely the end of conflict; more often, they are brief, brittle intermissions before the next act of violence. The latest two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran, brokered through Pakistani mediation and announced earlier this week, is a case in point. Even before the scheduled talks in Islamabad—where the American delegation was to include Vice President J.D. Vance—the fragile truce appeared to be wavering. On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intensified his country’s bombing campaign against the Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, carrying out its deadliest attacks so far. At least 250 people were killed. In response, Iran reportedly again closed the Strait of Hormuz, despite the ceasefire’s explicit provision guaranteeing the safe passage of vessels. The ceasefire, painstakingly negotiated, is now hanging by a thread. And the man with his hands on that thread, pulling hard, is Benjamin Netanyahu. Only the United States, through President Donald Trump, has the leverage to rein him in. Whether Trump will use that leverage—or whether he shares Netanyahu’s appetite for prolonged conflict—will determine whether diplomacy survives or gives way to a wider, more devastating war.
The Anatomy of the Ceasefire: What Was Agreed, What Was Not
The two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran, announced with much fanfare, was always a fragile construct. It was brokered through Pakistan, which has maintained channels to both Washington and Tehran, and was intended to create a window for diplomatic negotiations. The key provisions reportedly included a halt to US-Israeli airstrikes on Iranian territory, a halt to Iranian retaliation against US and Israeli assets, and—crucially—the guarantee of safe passage for vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical oil chokepoint.
However, the ceasefire’s scope was ambiguous from the start. Did it apply only to direct US-Iran hostilities, or did it extend to Israel’s actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon? Iran and its mediator, Pakistan, have maintained that Lebanon was part of the deal, arguing that Hezbollah is an integral part of Iran’s regional defence network. The US and Israel have denied this, insisting that the ceasefire covered only direct strikes on Iranian soil. This ambiguity was not a bug but a feature—a diplomatic fudge that allowed all parties to claim victory while preserving their freedom of action. But fudges do not hold when blood is being shed. Israel’s intensified assault on Lebanon has exposed the ceasefire’s fault line, and the entire edifice is now at risk of collapse.
Netanyahu’s Escalation: Military Adventurism That Hasn’t Gone According to Plan
Netanyahu’s military adventurism in Iran has not gone according to plan. The initial Israeli strikes, coordinated with the US, were intended to degrade Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and missile capabilities. But Iran has proven more resilient than expected. Its air defences, though damaged, have held. Its retaliatory strikes, though painful, have been absorbed. And its regional proxies—Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various militias in Syria and Iraq—have continued to harass Israeli and US assets.
Frustrated by the stalemate, Netanyahu has now pivoted to Lebanon. The logic, from an Israeli perspective, is straightforward: Hezbollah is Iran’s most capable proxy, possessing an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles, many of which can reach deep into Israeli territory. Degrading Hezbollah’s capabilities would both punish Iran and secure Israel’s northern border. But the execution has been brutal. The recent airstrikes on Lebanon are reportedly causing widespread civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure. More than a million people in Lebanon have been displaced, and more than 1,700 have been killed. The deadliest attack so far killed at least 250 people in a single day.
This is not precision warfare; it is collective punishment. And it is unlikely to achieve Netanyahu’s stated objective. Recent history, including Israel’s devastating war on Gaza, suggests that indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations do not weaken militant groups; they strengthen them. They drive survivors into the arms of the very organisations Israel seeks to destroy. They radicalise the next generation. They ensure that Hezbollah, far from being disarmed, digs in its heels.
Iran’s Response: Closing the Strait of Hormuz
In response to Israel’s assault on Lebanon, Iran has reportedly again closed the Strait of Hormuz. This is a dramatic escalation. The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint, through which approximately 20% of global petroleum consumption passes. Its closure would send oil prices skyrocketing, triggering global inflationary pressures and potentially tipping the world economy into recession.
Iran has used the threat of closing the Strait as leverage for decades. It has rarely followed through, knowing that such an act would invite overwhelming military retaliation from the US and its allies. But the current context is different. The ceasefire explicitly guaranteed safe passage for vessels. If Iran perceives that the ceasefire has already been violated by Israel’s actions in Lebanon—actions that Iran believes were covered by the agreement—then closing the Strait becomes not an act of aggression but a proportionate response to a breach. This is how ceasefires unravel: each side accuses the other of violation, retaliates, and the spiral accelerates.
The Diplomatic Fallout: Lebanon as the New Battlefield
The Lebanese government is caught in an impossible position. It has indicated its intent to disarm Hezbollah—the militant group that operates as a state within a state—but has so far lacked the capacity. The Lebanese state is weak, fractured along sectarian lines, and deeply indebted. It cannot confront Hezbollah militarily, nor can it prevent Israel from striking Lebanese territory. Now, Israel’s plan to establish a new security zone south of the Litani River—in what would be its seventh invasion of Lebanon—amounts to illegal annexation. The security zone would be created through military force, without Lebanese consent, and maintained indefinitely. This is not self-defence; it is territorial aggrandisement.
The international response has been critical but ineffective. France, Spain, Italy, the UK, and the EU have all condemned Israel’s assault on Lebanon. But condemnation without consequences is merely performative. Netanyahu, who has earned himself a reputation as a serial disruptor of diplomatic settlements, has said that, despite the ceasefire, Israel will continue to strike Hezbollah “wherever necessary.” He is betting that the international community will not act, that the US will not restrain him, and that Iran will not escalate beyond a point.
The Only Player Who Can Rein Netanyahu In: Trump
This is where President Donald Trump enters the picture. The United States remains the only actor capable of compelling Israel to alter its course. It did so in June of last year, when Israel struck Iran despite a ceasefire in their 12-day war. Behind the scenes, Trump reportedly threatened to withhold military aid and diplomatic support if Netanyahu continued to escalate. The message was received; Israel pulled back.
Trump faces a choice now. He can use his leverage—the same leverage—to rein Netanyahu in again. Or he can allow Netanyahu to drag the region into a wider war. The calculation for Trump is not purely strategic; it is also political. Netanyahu is a political ally, and a significant constituency within the Republican Party supports Israel unconditionally. Reining Netanyahu in would risk alienating that constituency. But allowing the ceasefire to collapse would also carry costs. A wider war would draw in the US directly, with all the attendant risks of casualties, economic disruption, and global instability.
The article argues that Trump must rein Netanyahu in, and it makes a compelling case. Netanyahu is arguably the only player who could benefit politically from a prolonged conflict. A wartime leader often sees a boost in domestic approval, at least initially. Netanyahu’s political position has been precarious, with corruption trials and coalition instability. A prolonged conflict could consolidate his base and distract from his legal troubles. But the benefits for Netanyahu would come at an enormous cost to everyone else: the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran, the global economy, and ultimately, Israel itself.
The Humanitarian Catastrophe: Lebanon’s Plight
The human cost of Israel’s assault on Lebanon is already staggering. More than a million people have been displaced from their homes. More than 1,700 have been killed. Hospitals are overwhelmed. Civilian infrastructure—roads, bridges, power grids, water treatment plants—has been damaged or destroyed. The Lebanese economy, already in freefall, is now facing complete collapse.
This is not collateral damage; it is a deliberate strategy. Israel has called it “mowing the grass”—periodic military campaigns to degrade Hezbollah’s capabilities. But grass grows back. And each time it is mowed, it grows back tougher, more resilient, more entrenched. The only sustainable solution to the Hezbollah threat is a political one: a strengthened Lebanese state that can assert its sovereignty over all its territory, a disarmament agreement negotiated rather than imposed, and a regional security framework that addresses Israel’s legitimate concerns without collective punishment of Lebanese civilians. But Netanyahu’s current trajectory—seventh invasion, illegal annexation, indiscriminate bombing—makes a political solution less likely, not more.
The Wider Conflagration: Regional and Global Risks
The most dangerous risk is that of a wider conflagration. If Iran withdraws from the ceasefire over Israel’s assault on Lebanon—potentially triggering a resumption of US military action—diplomacy could again give way to hostilities. And hostilities would not remain contained. Hezbollah would fire its rockets into Israel. The Houthis would target shipping in the Red Sea. Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq would attack US bases. The Strait of Hormuz would remain closed. Oil prices would spike. Global supply chains would be disrupted. Food and energy insecurity would worsen, particularly in the Global South.
This is not alarmism; it is the logical trajectory of escalation. The security of the entire region—and, by extension, global energy and food security—depends on the ceasefire holding. And the ceasefire holding depends on Israel halting its assault on Lebanon. And Israel halting its assault on Lebanon depends on the United States using its leverage. The chain of causation is clear. The question is whether President Trump has the will to act.
Conclusion: A Test of Leadership
The two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran was always fragile, but it was also a diplomatic achievement. It created a window—narrow, but real—for negotiations that could have de-escalated the broader conflict. That window is now closing, as Netanyahu’s bombs fall on Lebanon and Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz.
President Trump faces a test of leadership. He can allow Netanyahu to dictate the trajectory of the conflict, with all the risks of wider war and global economic disruption. Or he can use American leverage—military aid, diplomatic support, the threat of abandonment—to rein Netanyahu in. The former is the path of least resistance in the short term, but it leads to catastrophe. The latter requires political courage, but it is the only path to sustainable security.
The article concludes with a stark warning: “Trump must press Israel to hold its fire. The security of the entire region—and, by extension, global energy and food security—depends on it.” That warning should be heard not only in Washington but also in Tel Aviv, in Tehran, and in every capital that has a stake in West Asian peace. The ceasefire is fragile, but it is not yet dead. It can still be salvaged—if the man with the leverage chooses to use it.
Q&A: The Fragile Ceasefire and the Risk of Wider War
Q1: What was the two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran supposed to achieve, and what were its key provisions?
A1: The two-week ceasefire was brokered through Pakistan and intended to create a window for diplomatic negotiations between the US and Iran. Its key provisions reportedly included:
-
A halt to US-Israeli airstrikes on Iranian territory.
-
A halt to Iranian retaliation against US and Israeli assets.
-
Guarantee of safe passage for vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical oil chokepoint.
However, the ceasefire’s scope was ambiguous. Iran and Pakistan maintained that Lebanon was part of the deal (arguing that Hezbollah is integral to Iran’s regional defence network), while the US and Israel denied this, insisting the ceasefire covered only direct strikes on Iranian soil. This ambiguity was a diplomatic fudge that allowed all parties to claim victory while preserving their freedom of action.
Q2: Why has Israel intensified its bombing campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and what has been the human cost?
A2: Prime Minister Netanyahu’s military adventurism in Iran has not gone according to plan. Iran has proven more resilient than expected, and frustrated by the stalemate, Netanyahu has pivoted to Lebanon to degrade Hezbollah, Iran’s most capable proxy. Hezbollah possesses an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles, many capable of reaching deep into Israeli territory. The recent airstrikes on Lebanon are reportedly causing widespread civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure. More than a million people have been displaced, and more than 1,700 have been killed. The deadliest attack so far killed at least 250 people in a single day. Critics argue that indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations do not weaken militant groups but strengthen them, driving survivors into the arms of the organisations Israel seeks to destroy.
Q3: How has Iran responded to Israel’s assault on Lebanon, and what are the global economic risks?
A3: In response to Israel’s assault on Lebanon, Iran has reportedly again closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of global petroleum consumption passes. Closure would send oil prices skyrocketing, trigger global inflationary pressures, and potentially tip the world economy into recession. Iran has used the threat of closing the Strait as leverage for decades but has rarely followed through, knowing it would invite overwhelming military retaliation. However, if Iran perceives that the ceasefire has already been violated by Israel’s actions in Lebanon—actions that Iran believes were covered by the agreement—then closing the Strait becomes framed as a proportionate response to a breach, not an act of aggression.
Q4: What is Israel’s reported plan to establish a new security zone south of the Litani River, and why is it considered illegal?
A4: Israel’s plan to establish a new security zone south of the Litani River would be its seventh invasion of Lebanon. The security zone would be created through military force, without Lebanese consent, and maintained indefinitely. Critics argue this amounts to illegal annexation—territorial aggrandisement under the guise of self-defence. The Lebanese government, weak and fractured, cannot confront Hezbollah militarily nor prevent Israel from striking Lebanese territory. The security zone plan, if implemented, would deepen the humanitarian crisis (over a million displaced, over 1,700 killed) and further destabilise Lebanon. The article argues that the only sustainable solution is political: a strengthened Lebanese state, a negotiated disarmament agreement, and a regional security framework, not unilateral Israeli military action.
Q5: Why is President Trump uniquely positioned to rein Netanyahu in, and what are the political calculations that might prevent him from doing so?
A5: The United States remains the only actor capable of compelling Israel to alter its course. It did so in June of last year, when Israel struck Iran despite a ceasefire in their 12-day war; behind the scenes, Trump reportedly threatened to withhold military aid and diplomatic support. Trump faces a political calculation. Netanyahu is a political ally, and a significant constituency within the Republican Party supports Israel unconditionally. Reining Netanyahu in would risk alienating that constituency. However, allowing the ceasefire to collapse would also carry costs: a wider war would draw the US directly, with risks of casualties, economic disruption, and global instability. The article argues that Netanyahu is arguably the only player who could benefit politically from a prolonged conflict (boosting domestic approval, consolidating his base, distracting from corruption trials), but the benefits for him would come at enormous cost to everyone else. Trump must choose between short-term political convenience and long-term regional and global security.
