How Sustainable Is the Iran-US Ceasefire? Four Key Challenges
Image source, Atta Kenare / AFP via Getty Images
Recent regional attacks have increasingly endangered the ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran, reached earlier this April.
Following recent assaults, US President Donald Trump and senior Iranian officials have both threatened further punitive actions.
On Wednesday, the United States announced airstrikes on Iranian military sites after a US helicopter crashed in the Gulf region.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed responsibility for attacks on US facilities in Bahrain and Jordan, while Kuwait reported having thwarted another attempt.
Following Iran’s missile strike on Israel last Sunday, Israel launched aerial attacks targeting western and central Iran — marking the first direct conflict between the two countries since the ceasefire.
President Trump called on both sides to halt the fighting.
Image source, Anadolu via Getty Images
Although President Trump has not elaborated, he stated Iran now has a “price to pay.” He described Iran as ‘completely defeated’ but noted it had only ‘talked without delivering results.’
Earlier, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said his country would respond to any attack or threat and commented that the US suffered defeat on the battlefield.
While no party has formally violated the ceasefire, rising tensions raise concerns that efforts to end the war between Tehran and Washington could be adversely impacted.
So, why is maintaining the ceasefire becoming more difficult? Experts identify four main reasons:
1. An Awkward Ceasefire for Iran
According to Sina Tose, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, the ceasefire does not address the root causes of the conflict from Iran’s perspective.
He explains that Israeli forces continue active assaults in Lebanon while the US maintains a naval blockade in Iranian ports to exert economic and military pressure.
The day after Iran called for a halt to attacks, Israeli forces struck the southern Lebanese city of Tyre.
Tehran views this situation as the US daily advancing its advantage, seeking to control Lebanon and Israel indirectly without returning to open conflict — a scenario Iranian officials refuse to accept.
He further warns US pressure targets military and economic allies, risking the establishment of enduring regional dynamics weakening Iran’s influence.
Experts say internal pressures on Iranian leadership prevent them from accepting a ceasefire agreement that portrays them as weak or under enemy pressure.
2. Israel’s Role
Image source, Anadolu via Getty Images
Experts indicate Israeli actions have hindered the stability of the ceasefire.
Dr. H A Heller, Associate Fellow at the UK’s Royal United Services Institute, explains, “The primary interest of the oil-producing countries is to prevent any agreement between the US and Iran that would allow Iran to remain a regional power.” He describes Iran as a potential obstacle to negotiations.
“They take actions to undermine negotiations—not because US diplomacy persists, but precisely for that reason.”
After Sunday’s attacks, President Trump urged the oil-producing countries not to strike Iran, but debate continues about the extent of Israeli defiance of this request.
Military analysts note that Israel is dependent on US support in its prolonged conflict with Iran.
Senior researcher Yehoshua Kaliski from Israel’s National Security Studies Institute says, “Israel cannot sustain this war alone for long because ammunition and resources will run out.”
Military historian Danny Orbach adds Israel is signaling it will not relinquish its security interests in any agreement made with Tehran.
“If an agreement severely harms Israel’s interests, Israel might reverse the situation,” he told Reuters.
On a phone call with the BBC, President Trump denied reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected his calls for restraint following Iranian attacks.
3. Calculated Provocation
A third element appears to be that provocative actions are themselves part of a negotiation strategy.
As US and Israeli forces sustain military pressure, sanctions, and maritime blockades, Iranian leadership and security agencies remain united without signs of internal unrest.
Analysts comment that this has strengthened Tehran’s resilience, while Israel appears ready to endure pressure and possibly establish new frontiers in the conflict.
Experts emphasize that military pressure and diplomacy continue concurrently.
“Iran has not abandoned the diplomatic path,” Tose says.
He adds that expanding activities of Iran-backed groups in Lebanon, the Gulf, and elsewhere aim to increase bargaining leverage without escalating to full-scale war.
Heller shares this view, warning that if Israeli and allied forces face no costs for attacks on Iran, the US security plan for the region might prove costly.
4. Limits of American Influence
Image source, Anadolu via Getty Images
The final factor concerns the role of the United States, with much hinging on how far Washington seeks to extend its influence.
As Israel’s primary military backer, Washington supplies weapons, economic, and diplomatic support that have greatly benefited Israel in the conflict.
Heller notes this influence helps understand the delicate nature of the ceasefire.
“If Washington wants to shift the posture of the oil-producing countries, it has the influence to do so,” he says, adding US support is likely to draw their immediate attention.
“But if it does not wish to use that influence accordingly, it may be refused cooperation. Influence exists but no will to use it.”
Risks in the Coming Days
Experts say these factors make long-term solutions even more difficult.
Many experts still view diplomacy as the only viable solution.
However, Heller warns if diplomacy is merely a cover for military actions, Iran may recalibrate its approach by further raising the costs of any attack.
This shift, he analyzes, would escalate tensions and create a riskier environment moving forward.