EditThe ceasefire that solved nothing: Israel and Iran are sliding back towards conflict
Trump publicly called on both sides to "stop shooting", warning that further military action could jeopardise ongoing diplomatic efforts
Israel and Iran exchanged strikes overnight in the most serious escalation since the fragile ceasefire that took effect on 8 April, raising fresh doubts about the viability of diplomatic efforts led by U.S. President Donald Trump.
Iran’s military said on Monday that its first wave of attacks on Israel since the truce was now over, but warned that operations could resume should Israel continue strikes in Lebanon. Tehran described its missile launches as retaliation for Israeli attacks on the outskirts of Beirut.
Israel had launched strikes against targets in Iran after Iranian missiles were fired towards Israeli territory late on Sunday. According to Reuters, Israel also agreed to suspend further attacks on Iran following a request from Trump.
The latest escalation also involved Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi movement, which launched a missile towards Israel, highlighting the continued operational capacity of Tehran’s regional network of allies and proxy groups.
Trump publicly called on both sides to “stop shooting”, warning that further military action could jeopardise ongoing diplomatic efforts. He later suggested that discussions on restoring the ceasefire remained possible and maintained that a negotiated arrangement was still within reach.
According to a U.S. official, Trump had previously urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to proceed with retaliatory strikes against Iran.
While Iran announced the suspension of military operations against Israel, it warned that attacks could resume if Israeli military activity continued, particularly in southern Lebanon. Israel, meanwhile, signalled that although it would comply with Washington’s request to halt direct strikes on Iran, operations against Hezbollah-linked targets in Lebanon would continue.
The exchange underscores the increasingly precarious nature of the April ceasefire, widely viewed as a tactical pause rather than a durable political settlement.
Explosions return to Tehran
During the night of 7-8 June, explosions were reported across Tehran, with residents describing powerful blasts that shook buildings throughout the capital. Similar incidents were reported in Tabriz and Isfahan.
In northern Israel, air raid sirens sounded across several regions after Iranian ballistic missiles were detected. Israeli air defence systems were activated to intercept incoming projectiles. For a conflict that both sides had nominally agreed to pause, the overnight developments appeared to mark a return to open confrontation.
According to Israeli military reports, 31 missiles were launched from Iran and Yemen in coordinated waves. Israel responded with strikes targeting missile-launch infrastructure in western and central Iran.
A ceasefire built on unresolved disputes
The April ceasefire left the core drivers of the conflict untouched. Neither Iran’s nuclear programme nor the status of military operations in Lebanon was addressed as part of a broader settlement.
Israel continued near-daily strikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, which Tehran repeatedly described as violations of the ceasefire. In recent weeks, Iranian officials increasingly linked the sustainability of the truce to an end to Israeli military operations on the Lebanese front.
Tensions escalated further after Israel launched its most significant military incursion into Lebanon in more than two decades, crossing the Litani River and expanding operations in southern parts of the country.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf subsequently accused the United States of facilitating a “maritime blockade” and undermining agreements related to Lebanon, remarks widely interpreted as political justification for Tehran’s subsequent actions.
The unresolved nuclear question
At the centre of the confrontation remains Iran’s nuclear programme. US and Israeli forces previously targeted key nuclear facilities, including Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, using bunker-busting munitions designed to penetrate hardened underground infrastructure.
U.S. intelligence assessments suggest Iran relocated a substantial portion of its enriched uranium stockpile before the strikes and that some underground facilities survived the attacks, potentially delaying the programme by only a few months. CIA Director John Ratcliffe has disputed those assessments, arguing that the damage was considerably more extensive.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not had access to inspectors at several critical sites since June 2025, when Tehran restricted inspections following the so-called 12-Day War with Israel.
The issue resurfaced in March, when Iranian ballistic missiles struck areas near Israel’s nuclear research centre at Dimona, injuring around 180 people. While the IAEA found no evidence that the facility itself had been hit, the incident demonstrated Tehran’s willingness to target areas associated with critical nuclear infrastructure.
Analysts at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) concluded that military operations had significantly damaged Iran’s nuclear infrastructure but failed to eliminate the programme altogether. The nuclear issue therefore remains unresolved, continuing to complicate diplomatic efforts.
Global implications
Energy markets remain highly sensitive to developments in the Gulf. Any renewed threat to the Strait of Hormuz would likely trigger sharp price increases and renewed volatility across global markets.
Brent crude rose on Monday as traders assessed the risk of further disruption to global energy supplies. The Red Sea remains vulnerable as long as Houthi forces retain operational capabilities, while Asian economies dependent on Gulf oil remain particularly exposed.
The implications for nuclear proliferation are equally significant. Iran’s ability to launch direct ballistic missile strikes against Israel despite severe damage to its air-defence network sends a message to other states observing the conflict. Even a contained escalation risks accelerating military modernisation efforts and strengthening arguments in favour of nuclear deterrence among vulnerable regimes.
Trump remains the central variable in the diplomatic equation. His approach has combined military pressure with intermittent diplomatic outreach. His recent warning that continued strikes would “certainly not help negotiations” suggests a continuing preference for a negotiated solution.
However, two months of unsuccessful talks raise questions about the extent of Washington’s remaining leverage. The latest exchange of missiles was not an unexpected development but rather the logical consequence of a ceasefire that halted hostilities without addressing the underlying causes of the conflict.
Sources: Reuters, CNN
Caption: An Ultra-Orthodox Jew looks at the remains of an Iranian ballistic missile that landed in an open field next to the West Bank settlement of Mevo’ot Yericho at the Jordan Valley, 8 June 2026. Iran launched missiles against Israel in retaliation to an earlier Israeli strike on Beirut’s southern suburb. EPA/ABIR SULTAN
Updated: June 8, 2026 - 16:40
