For Israeli troops, there was no ceasefire.
Along the shores of the Persian Gulf, where ancient trade routes and modern energy corridors converge, Iran launched missiles and drones into Kuwait and Bahrain, killing at least one and wounding dozens more — not as an act of war in the traditional sense, but as a calculated argument about who holds power before the ink of any agreement dries. The strikes arrived precisely when negotiations between Washington and Tehran were said to be close, revealing the oldest truth in diplomacy: the approach of peace often intensifies the violence meant to shape its terms. What unfolds now is less a battle over territory than a contest over leverage — over who controls the Strait of Hormuz, who disarms first, and whose ceasefire counts.
- Iranian Revolutionary Guards struck Kuwait's international airport and U.S. naval installations in Bahrain, killing at least one person and wounding more than sixty, framing the assault as self-defense against American military operations in the region.
- The attacks exposed a dangerous gap at the center of negotiations: Washington believes a nuclear deal is nearly done, while Tehran insists the nuclear question cannot even be addressed until a comprehensive ceasefire — including Lebanon — is signed first.
- In Lebanon, a ceasefire announced just days earlier collapsed almost immediately, with Israeli drones striking near Beirut, Hezbollah firing back at northern Israeli towns, and Israeli military officials signaling that strikes on Beirut itself would likely resume within days.
- Netanyahu and Trump, both navigating domestic political pressures, are pursuing the same region through different wars — Trump seeking a deal that reopens energy markets, Netanyahu needing continued conflict to sustain his image as Israel's indispensable security leader.
- With Netanyahu openly stating that the Strait of Hormuz could be opened by military force, and Iran testing its capacity to control Gulf transit, the region is caught between the promise of negotiation and the logic of escalation.
At least one person was killed and more than sixty wounded when Iranian missiles and drones struck Kuwait's international airport and military installations in the Gulf. Iran's Revolutionary Guards framed the assault as self-defense, arguing that American bases in Kuwait and Bahrain — home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet — were being used to attack civilian shipping and violate existing ceasefire terms. The Gulf Cooperation Council condemned the strikes as cowardly attacks on civilian targets, calling the escalation dangerous and unprecedented.
Donald Trump moved quickly to characterize the attack as a negotiating maneuver rather than a breakdown, insisting a nuclear agreement with Iran was close and that Tehran had already accepted constraints on its nuclear program. Iran's government told a different story: the nuclear file would only be opened in a second phase of talks, after a comprehensive ceasefire covering all fronts — including Lebanon — was in place. This sequencing dispute, about what gets resolved first and what gets deferred, is the fault line keeping the violence alive.
Beneath the immediate exchange of fire lay a larger Iranian ambition: to reshape control of the Strait of Hormuz and establish itself as the decisive power over this critical energy corridor. By demonstrating its capacity to strike across the Gulf, Tehran appeared to be betting it could force a renegotiation of regional leverage before any final deal was signed.
In Lebanon, the situation was no less volatile. A ceasefire arrangement announced by Trump — Israel would spare Beirut if Hezbollah stopped firing at northern Israeli communities — collapsed within days. Israeli drones struck near Beirut, Hezbollah responded with missiles targeting Israeli towns, and Israeli military officials suggested strikes on the capital would likely resume shortly. Three paramedics were killed and two Lebanese soldiers wounded in continued southern bombardment. Israel's army chief made clear that for his forces, no ceasefire existed.
Netanyahu, dismissing Trump's private frustrations, restated his conditions: Hezbollah must be disarmed and Lebanon demilitarized. Israeli and Lebanese representatives met in Washington for a fourth round of talks, with Secretary of State Rubio hoping for a joint action plan to extend Lebanese government authority across the country. Yet the two allies were navigating the same region toward different destinations — Trump seeking a deal that would ease pressure on energy markets, Netanyahu needing the conflict to sustain his standing as Israel's security guarantor. When Netanyahu publicly noted that the Strait of Hormuz could be opened by military means, it was less a policy statement than a warning: Israel would not consider itself bound by whatever Washington negotiated.
At least one person was killed and more than sixty others wounded when Iranian missiles and drones struck Kuwait's international airport and military installations across the Gulf. The attack, presented by Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a lesson directed at the United States, arrived amid negotiations that both sides claim are nearing completion—yet neither side appears willing to stop fighting until the terms they want are locked in place.
Donald Trump moved quickly to frame the assault as a negotiating tactic rather than a deal-breaker. He insisted the agreement with Iran was close, emphasizing that preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons remained the central issue and that the Iranians had already accepted this constraint. But Iran's government drew a different line. Tehran said the nuclear program itself would only be addressed in a second phase of talks, after a comprehensive ceasefire was signed covering all fronts, including Lebanon. This disagreement—about what gets settled first and what gets deferred—sits at the heart of why the violence continues.
Iran's foreign minister, Abás Araghchi, defended the strikes against Kuwait and Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, as acts of self-defense. He argued that American military bases in these countries were being used to attack civilian shipping and violate the ceasefire. The logic Tehran was advancing was straightforward: if the United States fires from these locations, Iran will fire back at them. But beneath the immediate retaliation lay a larger ambition. Iran appeared to be testing whether it could reshape control of the Strait of Hormuz itself, positioning itself as the power with final say over transit through this vital energy corridor. The regime was betting that by demonstrating its capacity to strike, it could force a renegotiation of who holds leverage in the Gulf.
The Gulf Cooperation Council condemned Iran's aggression as cowardly attacks on civilian targets and called the escalation dangerous and unprecedented. Its secretary general stated that the strikes reflected Tehran's commitment to hostile policies that threatened the security and sovereignty of member states. Yet the strong American military presence in the region had once again proven unable to shield an allied nation from attack. This gap between American power and American protection was not lost on anyone watching.
In Lebanon, the fragile ceasefire was already fraying. Trump had announced a new arrangement on Monday: Israel would not attack Beirut if Hezbollah refrained from firing at northern Israeli communities. By Wednesday, that understanding had collapsed into violence. Israeli drones struck a vehicle on the main highway south of Beirut near Khaldeh. Hezbollah responded with drones and missiles targeting Israeli settlements and towns. Israeli forces continued bombing the south, killing three paramedics and wounding two Lebanese soldiers. Israeli military officials, speaking to Channel 13, suggested that attacks on Beirut itself would likely resume within days. The army's chief of staff made clear that for Israeli troops, there was no ceasefire.
Netanyahu dismissed Trump's recent criticism—the president had called him a "damn fool" in a phone call—and restated his conditions for peace. To save Lebanon and achieve Israeli-Lebanese peace, he said, Hezbollah must be disarmed and Lebanon demilitarized. This was an objective he and Trump shared, he claimed. Israeli and Lebanese representatives met in Washington for the fourth time, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressing hope that the talks would produce a joint statement and action plan to strengthen Lebanese security forces and extend government control across the country.
But Trump and Netanyahu were pursuing different wars with different objectives. Both were in the midst of electoral campaigns, yet their political interests diverged sharply. Trump wanted an agreement that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and ease pressure on energy markets. Netanyahu needed to keep the fighting alive to reinforce his image as the security leader, the defender of Israeli military superiority. Even as Washington negotiated with Iran, Netanyahu made a point of stating that the strait could be opened by military means. It was a warning dressed as a policy option—a signal that Israel was not bound by whatever agreement the Americans might reach.
Citações Notáveis
If we want to save Lebanon and achieve Israeli-Lebanese peace, Hezbollah must be disarmed and Lebanon demilitarized.— Netanyahu
The nuclear program will be negotiated in a second phase, after a comprehensive ceasefire covering all fronts is signed.— Iran's government position
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does Iran keep insisting the nuclear question waits for a second phase?
Because they know the moment they sign away the nuclear program, their leverage disappears. Right now, the threat of nuclear development is their only card in a game where the Americans have military bases surrounding them.
But Trump says they've already agreed not to pursue weapons.
He says that. Iran's government says the nuclear issue is still on the table. What matters is what gets written down first. Whoever signs the ceasefire first loses the ability to demand more later.
So the attacks on Kuwait—those were meant to change the negotiating position?
They were meant to demonstrate that Iran can hurt American interests in the Gulf. It's a way of saying: you can't ignore us, and you can't protect your allies from us. It shifts the conversation from what Iran gives up to what the U.S. has to offer to make the strikes stop.
Netanyahu seems to be playing a different game entirely.
He is. Trump wants a deal that stabilizes markets and lets him claim victory. Netanyahu wants to keep fighting because fighting is his political identity. They're nominally allies, but their wars have different end dates.
What happens if they can't align those interests?
Then you get what you're seeing now—a ceasefire that isn't, negotiations that don't stop the shooting, and each side trying to grab as much ground as possible before the ink dries on whatever agreement eventually comes.