As U.S. and Iran agree to a temporary ceasefire, Israel launches ‘massacre’ in Lebanon, threatening entire deal

This story originally appeared in Mondoweiss on April 08, 2026. It is shared here with permission.

The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has temporarily halted, but Israel’s onslaught in Lebanon grinds on. Late on Tuesday, two hours before U.S. President Donald Trump’s ultimatum to Iran that the U.S. would obliterate the country’s “entire civilization,” a temporary two-week ceasefire was announced by Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, who mediated the deal. Sharif stated that the terms of the ceasefire would also include Israel’s war on Lebanon, but on Wednesday morning, Israel launched a massive bombing campaign across Lebanon, killing over 300 people, according to local sources. The Israeli escalation leaves the state of the ceasefire uncertain, with Iran reportedly threatening to withdraw from the agreement if Israel does not halt its attacks, according to Tasnim News Agency.

The Israeli bombing campaign, targeting multiple towns in the Baalbek region as well as the capital, Beirut, continued through the height of the midday rush hour. Lebanon’s Health Minister told Reuters that Lebanese hospitals are “crowded with victims,” and hospitals have called upon citizens to donate blood, while a state of emergency was declared across multiple parts of the country. The escalation on the Lebanese front is central to understanding the stakes of each side in the ceasefire, and it is already putting the prospects of a permanent agreement at risk.

Both Iran and the U.S. announced the deal with notably different narratives, each claiming victory. Although Israel is a main party to the conflict, it was not mentioned by either side, which makes its part in the ceasefire uncertain. What is also uncertain is whether the war will permanently end, and whether its end will mean the end of the escalation in the Middle East as of October 2023, peaking with the latest U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.

So what does this new ceasefire mean? And what are its possible implications for the near future?

Uncertainty over the terms of the agreement

The U.S. understanding of the ceasefire came first. Shortly after Pakistan’s initial announcement on social media, Trump posted on Truth Social that his administration and Iran had agreed to a two-week ceasefire after Iran presented a 10-point proposal, which he described as a “workable basis to negotiate.” Trump added that the U.S. “met and exceeded” all its military goals in Iran, and that “almost all points of past contention were agreed on with Iran, but the two-week period will allow for the agreement to be finalized and consummated.”

Shortly after, Iran’s Higher National Security Council, the country’s top leadership body, stated that Pakistan had informed Iran of the U.S.’s acceptance of the 10-point proposal as “a basis for negotiations,” noting that it doesn’t mean the end of the war. The statement considered Washington’s acceptance of negotiations on Iran’s terms “a victory,” adding that a two-week round of talks will begin on Friday in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. Iran stressed that it was ready to resume fighting if needed.

According to the Higher National Security Council statement, Iran’s proposal includes the opening of the Strait of Hormuz for international navigation in coordination with Iran, a halt to hostilities on all fronts, and a withdrawal of U.S. military equipment from the region. The proposal also reportedly includes drafting a protocol for safe navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, reparations to Iran for the damage caused by the war, the lifting of all sanctions imposed on the country, and the unfreezing of all its assets in international banks. Iran’s proposal stressed that these terms must be enshrined in an international resolution to be adopted by the UN Security Council.

Although the U.S. and Iranian announcements of the ceasefire did not contradict one another, the narratives differed. Iran adopted a celebratory tone while maintaining guarded skepticism towards the coming talks in Islamabad. Trump also celebrated what he considered U.S. military achievements, but remained ambiguous on the details, projecting confidence in the success of the upcoming talks.

Widespread Israeli condemnation of the ceasefire

In Israel, news of the ceasefire prompted immediate, clear reactions. In the final hours before Trump’s deadline, the atmosphere in Israel seemed confident and optimistic that the Pakistani-mediated diplomatic efforts would fail, and that a major U.S. offensive on Iran’s civilian infrastructure was imminent.

Israel’s Channel 12 quoted unnamed Israeli officials on Tuesday, saying that the expiration of the deadline set by the U.S. president would provide Israel with a “rare window of opportunity” to strike strategic targets in Iran, including power plants and other infrastructure. Israel’s Channel 15 reported that Israel and the U.S. agreed on a list of targets to be attacked by each of them, with strong pressure by Israel to include power plants, adding that these targets were approved by Israel’s cabinet.

The ceasefire was met with vocal anger and frustration from Netanyahu’s far-right allies. The Knesset member of Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power party, Zvika Fogel, slammed Trump for the ceasefire, saying that the U.S. president “wimped out” of the war “like a duck,” marking a noticeable escalation in anti-American rhetoric by an Israeli official. The head of the opposition party, Avigdor Liberman, lambasted the ceasefire as giving Iran “a breather” and an “opportunity to regroup,” adding that any agreement with Iran that does not include the end of its nuclear and ballistic missiles programs and its support for armed groups in the region means that Israel will have to fight again in the future, which will be under harsher conditions and force Israel to pay a heavier price.

The harshest criticism came from the opposition leader, Yair Lapid, who called the ceasefire “a failure of political and strategic leadership” on Netanyahu’s part. Lapid said in a statement that “there has never been such a political disaster in all of our [Israel’s] history,” adding that Israel wasn’t even part of the discussions when decisions were made concerning its own national security.

The Israeli government’s official reaction seemed to try to formulate an early Israeli interpretation of the ceasefire, with Netanyahu’s office stating that Israel supports the “suspension of strikes” on Iran for two weeks, while making clear that this “suspension” does not include Israel’s offensive on Lebanon.

Although it was expected that Israel would back a U.S. ceasefire with Iran, as it could not continue to fight Iran without U.S. participation, Israel’s continuation of its bombardment of Lebanon was a clear and direct contradiction of the Pakistani announcement, which clearly stated that the ceasefire included Lebanon. This appears to be the latest point of contention that Netanyahu’s government may seek to leverage to sustain its ongoing war policy and avert the “failure” described by his critics across the Israeli political spectrum.

Netanyahu’s gambit to decouple the ‘unity of fields’

Netanyahu also has a personal stake in the continuation of the war. His actions since October 7, 2023, can be interpreted as an effort to secure a defining achievement that might overshadow his perceived responsibility for Israel’s unprecedented security failure on that date. For Netanyahu, such an outcome would likely require a decisive blow against the Iran-aligned “Axis of Resistance,” spanning from Gaza to Lebanon, and finally, extending to Iran itself.

Despite the widespread devastation Israel inflicted on Gaza, it did not succeed in dismantling Hamas or expelling the Strip’s population. In Lebanon, Hezbollah, though weakened by the 2024 assassinations of its top military commanders, regrouped and came back to fight as fiercely as it did last year.

More significantly, its decision to enter the war alongside Iran — and Tehran’s insistence that Lebanon be included in the ceasefire framework — brought back the doctrine of “the unity of fields,” a central pillar of the Axis of the Resistance. For Israel, and for Netanyahu in particular, this outcome signals a return to the pre-October 7 status quo, underscoring the limited gains of more than two years of regional war.

The ongoing Israeli bombings in Lebanon, described by the Lebanese President’s office as “massacres,” came despite Hezbollah’s previous statement that it would halt its operations unilaterally to give the U.S.-Iranian ceasefire a chance, ceasing its firing of missiles toward Israel from the early dawn hours.

Israel’s emerging strategy appears increasingly aimed at keeping the Lebanese front active, even in the event that fighting with Iran subsides. The scale of Wednesday’s strikes on Lebanon raises a critical question: whether Hezbollah will continue to adhere to the ceasefire or choose to respond.

If it doesn’t, Israel may restore the pre-war dynamic, in which Israel continuously violated the ceasefire over 15,000 times, according to the UN, while Hezbollah continued to observe the ceasefire from one side. But if Hezbollah does respond without Iranian assistance, then Israel will have succeeded in decoupling the Lebanese and Iranian fronts, unless Iran decides to withdraw from the ceasefire. This is the direction things seem to be heading, especially after the White House spokesperson stated on Wednesday afternoon that the ceasefire didn’t include Lebanon, while Iran threatened to withdraw from the ceasefire if it isn’t respected in Lebanon as well.

What has changed this time?

However, this time Israel faces a serious challenge to its strategy. The talks on ending the war haven’t started yet, and the final ceasefire hasn’t been signed. Its escalation in Lebanon will likely make it a centerpiece of the upcoming talks, rather than excluding it.

At the same time, the international climate differs markedly from that which prevailed during Israel’s war on Gaza, when successive offensives were launched against the remnants of Palestinian cities in the Strip amid a largely muted international response. This time, the broader global impact of the war with Iran has been more acutely felt, particularly following Tehran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the resulting spike in oil prices. The conflict has garnered limited support both in the United States and internationally, a shift that is already reflected in emerging diplomatic positions toward Lebanon.

On Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron stated that any ceasefire must include Lebanon. Spain’s Foreign Minister, Jose Manuel Albares, stated that “all fronts must cease, and all fronts also means Lebanon. It is unacceptable that Israel’s war, Israel’s invasion of a sovereign country like Lebanon… continues.”

These positions might indicate how the international mood is leaning during the upcoming talks in Islamabad.