4 hours ago

Tom BatemanUS State Department correspondent

Weekend exchanges of strikes between Israel and Iran, even after US President Donald Trump urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid escalation, risked pulling the Middle East into fresh direct conflict involving Tehran and Washington.

Israel struck targets inside Iran for the first time since an April ceasefire, following Iranian missile launches at Israel that Tehran described as payback for Israeli attacks on Beirut.

The tangled alliances and shaky truces reveal how unstable the region stays more than three months after the US and Israel began their campaign against Iran.

The latest round underscores three key aspects of the conflict's path:

Trump cannot or will not fully restrain his Israeli partner despite public statements, a reality Tehran notices and hopes to exploit by widening gaps between Washington and Jerusalem
Iran accepts the chance of counterstrikes on its soil to tie the US-Iran conflict to the Israel-Hezbollah front
Trump's desired nuclear agreement is not near, since Iran judges his tolerance for risk as limited and aims to gain more concessions from Washington

Following Iran's missile barrage on Sunday, Trump told reporters he planned to phone Netanyahu immediately and instruct him against retaliation.

Such a response, he implied, could derail delicate diplomacy with Tehran.

Yet Israel proceeded with strikes hours later. Trump later told the BBC that Israeli aircraft were already en route during his conversation with the prime minister.

In a short call with the BBC, the president rejected claims that Netanyahu had ignored him, stating that the Israeli leader follows his instructions.

At first glance this appeared as another failure to rein in Netanyahu amid ongoing friction between the two.

Trump described the situation on Tuesday as the final stages of an impending strong agreement.

Pressed on timing, he suggested it might conclude in two or three days, after which the Strait of Hormuz would reopen.

Reports last week indicated Trump delivered a sharp rebuke to Netanyahu, labeling him overly aggressive for planning strikes on Beirut.

Netanyahu defended the Beirut operations as essential to counter Hezbollah threats to northern Israel.

Trump viewed those moves as endangering his own efforts to secure a deal reopening the Strait of Hormuz and obtaining nuclear assurances from Iran.

In a New York Post interview, Trump expressed frustration with Netanyahu's repeated clashes involving Lebanon.

Did Netanyahu therefore override Trump with the Iran strikes?

Although that view circulates widely, evidence points to the contrary.

Israel's moves indicate at least partial US approval, with Trump favoring restraint and a single limited round.

Veteran negotiator Aaron David Miller told the BBC that Trump effectively gave Netanyahu a blinking yellow light.

Practically, Israel required Washington's tacit consent to carry out the operation.

The US maintains its largest regional military presence since the Iraq invasion, with hundreds of personnel in Israel coordinating with the IDF.

Coordination on air routes with US forces was essential.

The IDF informed Israeli media of full coordination with US Central Command and noted American assistance in intercepting Iranian missiles.

By Monday afternoon both sides signaled the exchange had ended, aligning with Trump's preferred outcome.

His public remarks distancing himself from the strikes may have aimed at Tehran while preserving diplomacy, or he may have been swayed by Netanyahu after initially seeking to halt action.

Israel calculated it could not ignore the missile attack, yet Iran's decision to launch those missiles remains pivotal.

This marked the first Iranian response to an Israeli strike on Lebanon rather than on Iranian soil itself.

Tehran sought to connect the two ceasefires, its own with the US and the nominal one between Israel and Hezbollah, while probing US limits.

It tested how much support Washington would give an Israeli counterstrike and whether US forces would participate.

Any visible rift between the US and Israel over war direction benefits Tehran.

Trump ultimately maintained public distance while advancing talks.

In an NBC interview hours before the flare-up, he again called a deal with Iran very close.

Afterward he portrayed both Israel and Iran as having had their moment before urging a return to negotiations.

Iranian leaders appear more confident after the confrontation.

President Masoud Pezeshkian indicated the strikes improved Iran's standing at the table with Washington.

He described diplomacy and defense as twin pillars of national strength.

Iran has stayed active on both fronts, he posted online.

Heavy economic strain, intensified by the US naval blockade, pushes Iran's leadership to seek sanctions relief and access to frozen oil revenues first.

It also wants curbs on Israeli action against Hezbollah in Lebanon, viewing the group as a shield against further strikes on itself.

With US economic pressure from elevated oil prices in a midterm year, Tehran likely judges Trump's risk tolerance as low, though repeated clashes could test that patience.

Iran will therefore continue pressing for early sanctions relief and asset unfreezing, believing Trump prefers an accord over renewed fighting.

When asked Sunday whether he would release assets or ease sanctions at the outset, Trump replied no.

That stance may explain the absence of a deal so far.

Yet the risk of further regional instability drawing the US and Iran into direct combat again remains real.