On April 7, 2026, a ceasefire was agreed upon between the United States and Iran. However, the following day, Israel continued its massive strikes in Lebanon, causing hundreds of casualties. The reason behind this is that Lebanon is not included in the agreement, according to Washington and Tel Aviv.
In this context, the Israeli army had warned that the Lebanese Islamist movement, allied with Tehran, could extend its attacks beyond northern Israel “in the coming hours.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel would strike the Hezbollah “wherever necessary,” claiming strikes were carried out “with strength, precision, and determination.”
While the bombings have already claimed more than 200 lives according to Lebanese authorities, the situation is jeopardizing the ceasefire. Tehran denounces a violation of its spirit while international actors warn of the risk of a resumption of hostilities. Is the ceasefire already on thin ice? To discuss this, the new episode of the podcast “Le Titre à la Une” features Didier Idjadi, a Franco-Iranian sociologist, Iranian political refugee, and author of “Iran, Islamism, Laïcité: Histoire d’un affrontement” published by Héliade.
Israël launched its largest wave of coordinated strikes on Lebanon just after the ceasefire between the United States and Iran was announced. This was not a coincidence. Why did Israel choose this precise moment?
Israel chose this moment because it aligned with American objectives. The Americans demanded that the Iranian regime halt all uranium enrichment, revise its missile policy directed towards Israel, return the 450kg of enriched uranium to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and cease support for Islamist organizations in the region such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
At the same time, Israelis state that for 47 years, the Iranian regime has threatened Israel’s existence. In their propaganda, the regime has always desired the destruction of the state of Israel, referring to it as a “cancer.” The establishment of these “proxies” had the objective of this destruction. There was a convergence of American and Israeli interests. Following discussions between the Israeli Prime Minister, the American President, and their teams, the Americans agreed to simultaneous strikes alongside Israeli attacks.
Even if there were divergences within the American team, the Israeli Prime Minister was convinced action needed to be taken. This was compounded by the struggle of the Iranian people against the Islamist regime. Large demonstrations took place throughout Iran in early January, with Iranians chanting “down with the Islamic Republic” and aiming to end the religious regime. The regime responded by killing approximately 40,000 people to suppress this movement. The interests aligned: the deep desire of the Iranian people against the regime, American interests, and Israeli interests led to the decision to strike the Iranian regime.
These strikes are not the first time Israel has gone to war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Lebanese situation is tragic, but the root cause is the existence of Hezbollah, created by the Iranian regime and used as a lever against Israel. Hezbollah used its weapons to launch rockets against Israeli territory.
Therefore, while Israel was at war with the Iranian regime, Hezbollah chose to align with Iran out of solidarity and declared that they would attack Israelis. Israel retaliated by targeting Hezbollah bases and activity areas. And despite the negotiation agreement between Iranians and Americans, Israel specified that it would respect the ceasefire with the Iranian regime, but Lebanon was not included. Israel continues to bomb and target Hezbollah leaders.
Each side gives its own definition. The Iranian regime states that they want a ceasefire on condition that all ongoing wars in the region stop. However, the Israelis and Americans have a different interpretation. The details discussed during the meeting in Pakistan remain unclear, but there is a contradiction between the two interpretations of this agreement.
The negotiations that start on Friday, April 10 in Pakistan are already compromised. This is primarily due to the nature of the Iranian regime. They are not in favor of negotiations that would deprive them of their nuclear capabilities or missiles. For them, negotiations are a way to buy time. In 2015, during the nuclear agreement, the regime continued building missiles and underground nuclear sites with no information shared with Western powers.
Today, this manipulative policy suggests that the agreement will not be upheld. Furthermore, the regime’s bombings against Arab countries in the Persian Gulf continue. Within the regime, officials have conflicting views on not giving in to Americans.
The outcome of the negotiations is uncertain, especially as there are disagreements on the composition of the Iranian delegation. The name of Ghalibaf, the President of the Islamic Assembly, has been mentioned, but some groups contest this. The commander of the Revolutionary Guards was also cited. For now, the final decision is unknown, and it is uncertain if the delegation will actually go.
To what extent could Israeli strikes on Lebanon jeopardize the ceasefire between the United States and Iran?
Israel has always maintained autonomy regarding Hezbollah. I don’t believe the Americans are opposed to the continuation of Israeli bombings against Hezbollah. However, for the Iranian regime, this is a pretext to abandon negotiations by arguing that these strikes contradict the initial agreement.
The Americans may be looking for a pause to regroup, but they face constraints and internal disagreements among the public and lawmakers. Currently, they are keeping all troops mobilized. I don’t see any American opposition to Israel’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
