Hours after saying he “expected to be bombing” Iran again soon, US President Donald Trump on Tuesday announced he was extending the ceasefire set to expire at midnight – this time without a clear end date.
At the same time, he made equally clear that the Strait of Hormuz would remain blockaded.
That juxtaposition – pause the bombing, tighten the choke hold – captures the latest turn in what has been, by any measure, an unconventional campaign.
One day, the president signals imminent escalation; the next, he gestures toward negotiations. Critics argue that this is no way to conduct a war. Admirers counter that these mixed signals keep adversaries off balance, unsure whether the next move will be a diplomatic opening or a military strike, while also preventing oil prices from skyrocketing.
Both readings have merit. But what matters more than the style is the substance – and by that measure, the results are difficult to dismiss.
The US and Israel have significantly degraded Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities. Oil prices, though elevated, have not spiraled out of control. Markets have remained resilient. And Tehran is under acute financial strain.
Trump framed it starkly, writing that Iran is “collapsing financially,” losing hundreds of millions of dollars a day, and desperate to reopen Hormuz.
That claim may be overblown, but it points to a real dynamic: Iran’s economy, already weak before the war, is now undeniably in dire straits. Trump’s gambit – extending the ceasefire while keeping the blockade in place and tightening the screws economically – is doing what six weeks of bombing did not achieve, but indefinite economic pain might: more Iranian flexibility in negotiations.
Which brings us to the current ceasefire extension. Is it a risk? Undoubtedly. Any pause gives Iran time – time to regroup, to reassess, perhaps even to reposition assets that have thus far remained hidden. But it also gives Washington and Jerusalem time to reload.
The critical point is that this is not a full pause. The blockade of Hormuz remains in place, and with it, a tightening grip on Iran’s economic lifeline. Six weeks of intensive bombing inflicted extensive damage; a sustained squeeze on exports may yet compel flexibility.
In that sense, the policy is not one of restraint but of recalibration: shifting from military force to economic coercion while still keeping the military option visibly on the table.
Yet while Washington calibrates in the Gulf, Israel faces a more immediate test closer to home.
On the northern border, the ceasefire with Hezbollah is at its midpoint. But “ceasefire” in this context is something of a misnomer. Attempts at infiltration into the buffer zone Israel has established continue. Rockets have been fired at IDF troops. Tensions remain high.
October 7 massacre taught clear lesson
The lesson of the October 7 massacre is clear: Ambiguity invites erosion.
What begins as a minor violation – unauthorized movement, a tent provocatively pitched on Israeli territory – can quickly harden into a new status quo if left unanswered.
That cannot be allowed to happen again.
Israel’s response in Lebanon must be unambiguous and consistent. Every violation – whether the infiltration of Hezbollah terrorists beyond the new Yellow Line or rockets fired at IDF positions – must be met with force. Not symbolic force, but decisive action.
This carries risk. Firm responses can escalate. They can trigger cycles of retaliation that neither side initially seeks. But the alternative – allowing incremental violations to accumulate – is more dangerous still. It signals hesitation. It invites testing.
Hezbollah and Lebanon must understand that the rules have changed. The pre-October 7 paradigm – where provocations were overlooked and absorbed in the interest of quiet – no longer applies. Quiet remains a goal, but not at any price. If maintaining it requires ignoring violations, then it is not true quiet but a prelude to the next round of conflict.
Ultimately, there is a common thread linking the two fronts.
In the Gulf, Trump is attempting to convert military gains into diplomatic leverage through sustained economic pressure. In the North, Israel must turn those gains into consistent action on the ground – responding to every violation in a way that leaves no doubt about its redlines.
Different arenas, different tools – but the same principle: pressure without illusions.
The ceasefire with Iran, coupled with serious economic pressure resulting from the Hormuz blockade, may yet yield a diplomatic opening. The ceasefire with Hezbollah may yet hold. But neither will endure if the underlying lesson is ignored: that in this region, declarations do not sustain calm; enforcement does.
Source:
www.jpost.com
