Israel’s Defiance Of Trump Shatters The Truce In The US-Iran War

By Asad Mirza

Marking exactly 100 days since a catastrophic conflict reordered the Middle East, a fragile, US-brokered truce violently collapsed as Israeli jets struck deep inside Iranian territory. By directly defying President Donald Trump’s explicit warnings to exercise restraint, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pushed the region into uncharted waters, leaving a heavily anticipated peace deal dead in the water.

The conflict that began as a series of sharp, asymmetric naval skirmishes in the Persian Gulf has reached its grim centennial. Over the past 100 days, the United States and Iran have engaged in an exhausting war of attrition that has triggered what the International Energy Agency calls the worst energy crisis in modern history.

The conflict has seen the US Navy forced into escorting commercial vessels through the heavily contested Strait of Hormuz, direct American missile strikes against Iranian military radar and drone installations, and subsequent Iranian retaliatory strikes on Western bases across the region – including a devastating drone and rocket attack on Kuwait International Airport.

Yet, just as a fragile ceasefire brokered on April 8 appeared to offer a diplomatic exit ramp, a dramatic sequence of events over the last 48 hours has pushed the region closer to a total, uncontained regional war. At the heart of this latest escalation is a widening, highly public rift between the White House and Jerusalem, exposing the stark limits of American leverage over its closest Middle Eastern ally.

The immediate catalyst for the collapse of the truce began in Lebanon, where an unexpected exchange of fire rapidly dismantled weeks of delicate diplomacy. Following a rocket barrage launched by Iran-backed Hezbollah into northern Israel, the Israeli Air Force launched a severe retaliatory airstrike targeting the southern suburbs of Beirut – a heavily fortified stronghold of the militant group.

Tehran viewed the strikes on Beirut as an egregious violation of the standing agreements regarding Lebanon’s sovereign borders. In a calculated move designed to re-establish deterrence without triggering an outright regional invasion, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) retaliated on June 7 by firing a salvo of approximately ten ballistic missiles at the Ramat David Airbase in northern Israel, the precise installation from which the Israeli jets that struck Beirut had departed.

This specific sequence of military events unravelled with frightening speed over a 48-hour period. It began with the initial Hezbollah rocket attack into Northern Israel, which triggered the immediate Israeli retaliatory strike on Hezbollah strongholds in Beirut.

The Iranian missile response, while precise, was relatively measured in its payload, signaling Tehran’s desire to stay within the bounds of controlled escalation. However, the political fallout was immediate.

Iran’s top negotiator and Parliament Speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, took to social media to proclaim that the ongoing US naval blockade of Iran, combined with Washington’s perceived “green light” for Israeli operations in Lebanon, had effectively nullified previous diplomatic understandings.

As sirens wailed across Israel and the region braced for impact, President Donald Trump moved behind the scenes to save his administration’s signature foreign policy initiative. Trump had frequently claimed that Washington and Tehran were “very close to a final peace deal” that would permanently dismantle Iran’s enriched uranium program in exchange for economic concessions.

Fearing that an unrestricted regional cycle of violence would destroy months of secret negotiations, Trump spoke candidly to journalists, stating that both Israel and Iran had effectively “done their part” through an equal exchange of strikes and that further escalation was unnecessary.

This diplomatic breakdown exposed the deeply diverging strategic agendas of the two allies. On one side, Washington’s primary objectives are to secure a grand peace deal, prevent an all-out regional war, maintain global oil stability, lift the volatile naval blockade, and eventually leverage frozen assets for regional rebuilding.

On the other side, Jerusalem’s uncompromising position is driven by the need to permanently dismantle the Iranian nuclear threat and completely eradicate Iran-backed proxy networks operating on Israel’s borders. Because of these existential concerns, Israel increasingly rejects any US-brokered truces that leave these fundamental security threats intact.

The White House remained visibly shaken by the insubordination, refusing to comment on whether the strikes were carried out with any level of American coordination.

The military confrontation on the ground is closely mirrored by a fierce diplomatic stalemate over the fate of frozen Iranian financial assets. Prior to the latest round of strikes, the Trump administration had floated a highly controversial legal strategy to utilise billions of dollars in frozen Iranian foreign reserves to compensate Gulf allies for infrastructure damage caused by IRGC drone strikes and naval aggression over the course of the 100-day war.

Tehran has fiercely rejected the proposal, warning that any attempt to expropriate its sovereign funds would be treated as an act of international piracy. Concurrently, President Trump has dug in his heels regarding the sequencing of sanctions relief, explicitly stating that his administration would not unfreeze a single dollar of Iranian assets before a comprehensive, verified nuclear and ballistic treaty is fully signed and finalised.

This financial gridlock is heavily influenced by the dual nature of the Iranian resistance axis, which operates across both an economic and a military core. On the economic front, Iran maintains a total rejection of asset seizures for damages, demands the complete and immediate lifting of the naval blockade, and insists on upfront sanctions relief before making concessions.

On the military front, this resistance is backed by a commitment to symmetrical ballistic missile strikes, active threats against all regional US military bases, and the ongoing capability to disrupt vital international maritime transit corridors.

With Israel’s latest counter-strike, the entire architecture of the proposed peace deal has been thrown into complete limbo. The diplomatic progress made during previous rounds of negotiations in Doha has effectively evaporated.

As the war enters its second 100 days, the international community faces a deeply volatile landscape. The conflict has moved past the stage of proxy skirmishes and localised containment; it is now a direct, state-on-state war characterised by a complete breakdown of international legal norms and deterrence.

The legal basis for the ongoing US naval blockades and unilateral Israeli pre-emptive strikes faces mounting scrutiny from international legal experts, even as both nations claim the inherent right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

The fundamental reality of the conflict is that the United States is no longer the sole architect of the Middle Eastern security paradigm. By demonstrating that Israel will independently strike Iranian targets despite explicit American warnings, Netanyahu has decoupled Israeli security policy from Washington’s broader geopolitical agenda.

As long as Tehran demands a total lifting of the economic blockade before halting its regional operations, and Israel refuses to tolerate an intact Iranian nuclear infrastructure, President Trump’s envisioned “grand deal” will remain a distant mirage, drowned out by the thunder of anti-aircraft fire over Tehran. (IPA Service)