Declaring a ceasefire does not mean it is in effect—Lebanon becomes the “Achilles’ heel” of the US-Iran ceasefire

On the evening of April 7, 2026, both the US and Iran announced that they had reached a two-week temporary ceasefire agreement. The world was shaken. However, less than 24 hours after the ceasefire statement was released, the dispute over Lebanon had already pushed this fragile ceasefire agreement to the brink of collapse. On one hand, Israel announced that it would accept the ceasefire; on the other, it carried out the largest-scale airstrikes on Lebanon since the start of this round of fighting—destroying 100 Hezbollah targets within two hours. Iran immediately warned: if Israel continues attacking Lebanon, Iran will consider withdrawing from the ceasefire agreement.

I. At the very same moment of “agreeing to a ceasefire,” Israel launches its largest-scale airstrikes

Local time on April 8—just on the day Israel announced it had accepted the two-week ceasefire mediated by the United States, the Israel Defense Forces nevertheless announced the “largest-scale airstrikes on Hezbollah by Israel since the start of the current round of conflict”: Israel’s military struck 100 Hezbollah targets within 10 minutes. According to Xinhua News Agency, this airstrike has resulted in hundreds of casualties on the Lebanese side. This action directly contradicts the clause in the US-Iran ceasefire announcement stating “to stop fighting on all fronts.” Less than a day before and after the ceasefire agreement was signed, the parties’ definitions of the scope of the agreement have already shown fundamental disagreements.

II. “Ceasefire does not include Lebanon”: US and Israel’s line is the same—Iran will never accept

The official positions of the US and Israel are highly consistent: the ceasefire does not include Lebanon. The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement saying that the Israeli side supports Trump’s decision to implement a two-week ceasefire with Iran, but it clearly stated that “the ceasefire does not include Lebanon.” US President Trump also said in an interview with US media that the US-Iran two-week ceasefire “does not include Lebanon and Hezbollah.”

However, Iran has a completely different interpretation. According to CCTV News, Iran has explicitly informed the mediators that negotiations between Iran and the US in Pakistan “will only be held if a ceasefire is achieved in Lebanon.” Iran’s side emphasized that one of the core terms among Iran’s ten ceasefire clauses—“to stop the war against all members of the ‘Axis of Resistance’ and put an end to the aggression of the Israeli regime”—has already been openly violated by Israel’s airstrikes. Iran’s parliamentary speaker Kalibaf pointed out that three key clauses in Iran’s ten-point plan—including the ceasefire in Lebanon, banning drone incursions into Iranian airspace, and recognizing Iran’s right to uranium enrichment—had already been openly violated even before negotiations began.

III. “The negotiating basis” has already been shaken: the US and Iran say different things

Iran’s Foreign Minister Aragchi made a serious statement on social media: “The terms of the ceasefire between Iran and the US are clear and explicit: the US must choose between a ceasefire and continuing the war through Israel—these two cannot coexist.” The Commander of Iran’s Armed Forces, Hatem Anbia, Central Headquarters also issued a statement, declaring “victory” over the US and Israel, saying that in Iran’s 40-day resistance war, Iran “regained control of the war,” forcing the US and Israel to “surrender and accept Iran’s ceasefire conditions.”

During a visit to Hungary, US Vice President Vance described the current situation as a “fragile ceasefire”—a precise and apt wording that captures the essence of the ceasefire: it is an agreement stitched together with external force, and once it comes under pressure, it could fall apart at any moment.

IV. Shipping disrupted: the Strait of Hormuz is shut again

To make matters worse, after Israel carried out airstrikes on Lebanon, Iran reportedly closed the Strait of Hormuz again. Real-time updates from the Associated Press show that only a few hours after the ceasefire agreement took effect, the strait’s navigation conditions had already changed.

This move is highly symbolic: opening the Strait of Hormuz is the core “deal” in the ceasefire agreement—the precondition for Trump’s agreement to the ceasefire is Iran’s “full, immediate, and secure” opening of the strait. After the attacks on Lebanon, Iran closing the strait in essence tells the US and Israel: you have broken the precondition of the agreement, so I have no obligation to fulfill my commitments.

V. Rapid retreat from “successful negotiations” to “negotiations are invalid”: Iran’s position reverses sharply

The latest statement from Iran’s parliament speaker Kalibaf is even more shocking: before negotiations between Iran and the US have even begun, three key clauses among Iran’s ten ceasefire terms have already been openly violated. Under these circumstances, “both the ceasefire and the negotiations have lost all meaning.” On the same day, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps issued a statement warning that if Israel does not immediately stop its attacks on Lebanon, it will face “severe retaliation.”

According to sources, Iran has clearly informed the mediators that only after a ceasefire is achieved in Lebanon will Iran hold negotiations with the US in Pakistan. This statement ties the outlook for negotiations entirely to Israel’s military actions in Lebanon—if Israel continues attacking Lebanon, the Islamabad talks scheduled for April 10 may not take place at all.

VI. One ceasefire, three battlefields, with each side unwilling to give an inch

At present, this “ceasefire” involves three fronts at the same time:

· Iran’s homeland: US and Israeli military strikes against Iran are temporarily halted, but Iran has said it will resume fighting if negotiations fail.
· Lebanon: Israel has clearly stated that the ceasefire does not include Lebanon; it is still carrying out attacks on Hezbollah. Based on this, Iran threatens to withdraw from the entire ceasefire framework.
· The Strait of Hormuz: Iran once pledged to open the strait for two weeks, but after the attacks on Lebanon, it closed it again.

With one ceasefire agreement being interpreted differently across three fronts, each side has its own “exclusive interpretation” of the scope of the agreement. Among these, Lebanon has become the most easily ignited point—Iran’s “red line” has been drawn, Israel’s “determination” has also been made clear, and the US, as the nominal mediator, appears unable to reconcile the two.

Summary: On the first day that the ceasefire agreement went into effect, disputes over Lebanon have already made this “fragile ceasefire” almost a dead letter. Israel’s large-scale airstrikes on Lebanon, Iran’s retaliatory measures of closing the strait, and both sides’ unwillingness to compromise on the preconditions for negotiations—all these signs point to a brutal reality: announcing a ceasefire is one thing; making the ceasefire truly take effect is another. Whether the Islamabad talks on April 10 can be held as scheduled depends on the results of the parties’ interactions over the Lebanon issue in the next 48 hours. In the face of Iran’s red lines, Israel’s established military tempo, and the US’s characterization of the “fragile ceasefire,” this suspense has not been resolved by a long shot.
#Gate廣場四月發帖挑戰