RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — A fragile peace agreement in the Middle East has managed to survive, though just barely, despite being tested by multiple outbreaks of violence during the last two months. However, the ceasefire now faces its greatest threat of complete collapse, potentially plunging the region back into widespread warfare — with Lebanon serving as the potential trigger.
Weekend Israeli attacks targeting Hezbollah fighters in Beirut prompted retaliation from their primary backer, Iran, which conducted its initial strikes against Israel since the peace agreement took effect April 7. Israel countered with attacks on Iranian locations, while Iran’s allied forces in Yemen and Iraq made threats to expand the conflict. The U.S. and other peace brokers scrambled to keep the violence from escalating beyond control.
Should calm be restored, the underlying factors that sparked this violent episode remain unchanged.
Israel and the U.S. continue their confrontation with Iran and Hezbollah over determining the region’s future power structure, with all parties believing they operate from positions of advantage. U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, both confronting important elections, have conflicting priorities.
Here’s how each party evaluates the dangers, benefits and way forward:
Israel approaches its initial nationwide elections following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, assault on Israel that sparked the region’s conflicts. Netanyahu faces demands to demonstrate power after making repeated promises to eliminate Hezbollah. Through multiple wars and combat cycles, Israel has failed to permanently stop Hezbollah attacks into northern Israel.
Netanyahu also remains cautious about seeming subordinate to Trump, facing domestic criticism that yielding to the U.S. prevents the nation from achieving its military objectives. Trump has urged Netanyahu to prevent Lebanese fighting from undermining U.S. efforts to negotiate region-wide peace, and has declared that he, not Netanyahu, is the one who “calls the shots.”
Therefore, while Israel has begun direct talks with Lebanon’s government and achieved multiple ceasefire deals with it recently, Netanyahu has continued operations in southern Lebanon, capturing significant territory and advancing further north beyond Lebanon’s Litani River. It has maintained raids in the south targeting what it claims are Hezbollah’s rocket and drone stockpiles.
Netanyahu sought a display of strength following Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on northern Israel Sunday — an action Israeli officials had warned would prompt Israeli attacks on Beirut.
Hezbollah has dismissed the ceasefires accepted by Israel and the Lebanese government and declared it will not stop fighting while Israel maintains its attacks and keeps forces in southern Lebanon. The militant organization has sustained attacks on Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon along with barrages into northern Israel.
Iran mostly abandoned Hezbollah to fight alone during much of an earlier 2024 conflict. Following that war, Hezbollah ended its missile attacks on Israel — although Israel maintained regular strikes on what it identified as Hezbollah positions in Lebanon. However, when Israel participated with the U.S. in attacking Iran on Feb. 28, Hezbollah launched attacks on northern Israel supporting its partner.
Iran’s response to Israel regarding the Beirut attacks demonstrated its readiness to risk renewed regional warfare for its Lebanese interests and most significant regional partner.
Hezbollah faces mounting pressure as Israeli forces advance north of the Litani, approaching the city of Nabatiyeh, a regional center where Hezbollah maintains broad support. The organization also confronts growing tensions with the Lebanese government, where the prime minister and president have criticized Hezbollah for resuming conflict with Israel.
Hezbollah has resisted giving up its weapons, something Lebanese officials have promised will occur. The organization has stated it would only consider abandoning its weapons as part of a broader governmental “defense strategy,” possibly one incorporating Hezbollah into the Lebanese military.
Iran’s strike against Israel for Hezbollah’s sake involves significant dangers. Should full-scale warfare resume, Iran would face additional economic damage plus attacks on its military and top leadership.
However, Iran’s leaders have attempted to display confidence that the Islamic Republic and its economy can survive the impact. They have repeatedly risked the ceasefire’s failure over the past two months by maintaining a rigid position in U.S. negotiations.
Iran is wagering that its massive disruption of Strait of Hormuz traffic provides leverage to resist U.S. and Israeli objectives in negotiations – and that Trump’s hesitation to return to war will ensure the U.S. controls Israel.
Iran has demanded Lebanon’s inclusion in any regional settlement, and seeks to prevent a pattern allowing Israel to attack Lebanese and Iranian targets without facing retaliation.
The United States and Israel coordinated the Iranian strikes that initiated the war. However, public disputes between Trump and Netanyahu have recently become visible.
The war presents risks for Trump’s Republican Party, with midterm elections in November. Trump has claimed the elections — and economic concerns — don’t influence his war decisions. However, his party and advisers likely worry about potential voter damage from an ongoing conflict that increases gas prices and other costs. The president also wants to avoid voters seeing him as pulling the United States into another expensive Middle East conflict.
Similar to Lebanon, the U.S. and Israel increasingly express different positions on Iran.
In negotiations, the U.S. has prioritized resolving Iran’s nuclear program and ensuring free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Israel, historically worried about Iran’s nuclear program, also recognizes a unique chance to weaken Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities and its support for regional armed groups.
Despite extensive discussions, there’s minimal indication Iran is ready to compromise on its enriched materials and nuclear program’s future.
Gulf Arab nations want the conflict ended as rapidly as possible. Before the April ceasefire stopped most fighting, Iranian air attacks damaged regional infrastructure. Airports, desalination facilities, aluminum plants and oil installations were all hit.
Renewed broader warfare would expose those targets to additional attacks. An Iranian drone attack on Kuwait’s airport last week reminded everyone of the danger.
Meanwhile, Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz has affected oil and gas exports for Gulf nations dependent on sending tankers through the passage between the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea.
U.S.-allied Gulf states have historically hosted American naval, air and military installations because they view the partnership as protection from Iran. Yet when war erupted, they remained vulnerable to attacks, challenging their confidence in an alliance meant to ensure security.
The Gulf states have little to benefit from extended warfare and much to lose if instability becomes the region’s standard condition.
