Iran and Israel trade airstrikes: Is the ceasefire holding?

Early on June 8, Israel carried out strikes across Iran, with explosions reported in Tehran, Tabriz, Karaj, and Isfahan. This is the most serious escalation between the two countries since a fragile ceasefire came into effect in April.

The attacks came hours after Iran fired a volley of missiles toward northern Israel. Tehran accused Israel of repeatedly violating the ceasefire through military operations in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah, Iran’s closest ally in the country.

In a related development, U.S. President Donald Trump on June 7 called on both sides to stop attacking each other, stressing that Washington “holds the decision-making power” in all matters. However, analysts suggest that a significant disagreement between the U.S. and Israel over how to handle negotiations with Iran may be emerging.

Escalation unfolds

Tensions had been rising for days. On June 7, Israel struck the southern suburbs of Beirut, killing at least two people and wounding 20, despite a U.S.-brokered ceasefire announced by Israel and Lebanon on June 4.

Shortly after, Iran fired missiles toward northern Israel, described as retaliation for the Beirut attack. Most of the missiles were intercepted, with debris falling as far as Jordan and the West Bank on their way to Israel.

Israel responded with strikes on central and western Iran, while Tehran launched a second salvo. According to Haaretz, Iran has fired about 30 ballistic missiles since the night of June 7. Missiles were also launched from Yemen, with the Houthi group claiming responsibility, while Hezbollah continued to fight the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon.

This is Iran’s first direct missile attack on Israel since a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire in April, and the first time Tehran has retaliated against Israeli strikes in Lebanon with missiles fired from Iranian territory.

Is Israel defying the U.S.?

President Trump stated that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would ultimately have to accept any deal between Washington and Tehran. “I hold the decision-making power. I decide everything. He does not decide,” Trump told the Financial Times.

Yet just hours after Trump’s statement, Israel struck targets inside Iran, highlighting a clear gap between Washington’s calls for restraint and Israel’s escalatory actions.

Some analysts argue that Israel’s actions risk undermining Trump’s credibility in the region. “By challenging Trump, Israel has not only challenged Iran’s new equation; it has also weakened Trump’s credibility,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute.

Implications for the Lebanon ceasefire

The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon is now at the center of the latest regional escalation. Although the first U.S.-brokered ceasefire was announced on April 16, Israeli forces have continued their invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon. Israel controls about 2,000 square kilometers of Lebanese territory—nearly one-fifth of the country’s land area.

Since the beginning of March, more than 3,000 people have been killed in Lebanon and over 1 million displaced from their homes. Israel has also continued periodic strikes on the southern suburbs of Beirut, killing more than 600 people since the ceasefire took effect.

The Trump administration announced on June 3 that Israel and Lebanon had agreed to a new U.S.-brokered ceasefire, but Hezbollah immediately rejected it. The deal calls for Hezbollah to withdraw north of the Litani River but includes no corresponding commitment for Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon.

Analysts say Washington and Israel had tried to separate the Lebanon conflict from broader U.S.-Iran negotiations. Tehran’s latest intervention suggests that effort may have failed.

“Tehran’s decision to retaliate against an attack on Lebanon with missiles fired from its own territory is a significant development,” said Dr. Hamidreza Azizi, an Iran foreign policy expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. “It concretizes Iran’s foreign minister’s earlier position that the ceasefire applies on all fronts, and that a violation on one front is a violation on all.”

Will there be a return to full-scale war?

The conflict in Lebanon now appears closely tied to the broader confrontation between Iran and the U.S.-Israeli axis. Analysts believe Iran has carefully calibrated its response. “It was a limited attack, mostly intercepted, and caused no casualties,” Azizi said.

The key question now is whether the U.S. will intervene directly. This seems unlikely at present, given Trump’s repeated statements that a broader ceasefire is still achievable and his desire to avoid another regional war, especially due to the impact on oil prices tied to U.S. market volatility.

Iran also holds significant leverage. Despite rising tensions, no confirmed attacks have been made on U.S. military facilities in the Gulf. Analysts say any direct U.S. intervention could significantly increase the risk of Iran retaliating against regional military bases and infrastructure.

“Recent events show Iran’s belief that military pressure, not just diplomacy alone, creates leverage,” Azizi concluded. “The gap between Washington’s preference for restraint and Israel’s preference for retaliation is where a new cycle of escalation is most likely to begin.”