The hundredth day of Operation Epic Fury, the joint US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, brought a dramatic escalation that nearly derailed efforts to end the conflict.
The day began with Israel striking a Hezbollah stronghold in Beirut in response to earlier missile and drone attacks on northern Israel. Iran, which had warned Israel in advance, responded with limited missile strikes on northern Israel. By the end of the day, US President Donald Trump had delivered a stern phone call to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, urging him not to retaliate.
Netanyahu, however, defied Trump and ordered attacks on Tehran, Isfahan and Tabriz on Sunday night. Reciprocal strikes continued the following day, while Houthi forces increased their involvement in the conflict. Later, Iran formally announced that it was ending its military operations against Israel after Trump publicly pushed for a ceasefire, while warning that it would respond harshly if Israel continued its offensive operations.
The Iranian response was significant. Tehran had earlier threatened to target both US and Israeli assets, but it ultimately limited its strikes to Israel and then responded to Trump’s call to stop military operations.
Hopes for ending the war had appeared close two weeks earlier, but they were disrupted by Israel’s major attacks in southern Lebanon. When Netanyahu ordered Israeli forces in southern Lebanon to move towards Beirut, Iran immediately suspended its exchange of messages with the United States on a possible memorandum of understanding. Tehran insisted that a ceasefire across all fronts, including Lebanon, was necessary before negotiations could move forward.
Iran also threatened to close Bab-el-Mandeb, a key maritime route at one end of the Red Sea. This raised the stakes for Washington, as the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz had already become an urgent priority for Trump.
Seeking to contain the crisis, Trump pressed Netanyahu to stop the bombardment of Beirut. The United States also hosted trilateral negotiations earlier this month, during which Israel and Lebanon agreed on a truce. The arrangement depended on a complete cessation of fire by Hezbollah and its evacuation from southern Lebanon. The talks also produced a proposal to establish pilot zones in southern Lebanon where the Lebanese Armed Forces would assume full control.
Hezbollah immediately rejected the proposal, demanding a full Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, which represents roughly 10 percent of Lebanon’s territory.
The history of Israel’s involvement in Lebanon remains a warning. Israel’s 1982 invasion eventually trapped its forces in a costly low-intensity war with Hezbollah, which later emerged as a powerful military and political actor. Israel withdrew unilaterally in May 2000 after mounting losses, leaving a strategic vacuum that Hezbollah quickly filled.
This time, however, the situation may be different. Israel remains focused on weakening Hezbollah and pressuring Iran, while Netanyahu’s defiance of Trump appears driven by both strategic calculations and domestic political survival. Yet Israel’s ability to sustain both defensive and offensive operations remains heavily dependent on continuous US supplies, particularly interceptor systems.
Beyond Lebanon, the terms of a possible US-Iran peace arrangement remain difficult. US Secretary Marco Rubio recently outlined a two-phase framework before Congress. In the first phase, Washington would lift its naval blockade in exchange for Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz without conditions. Iran would also commit to negotiating a denuclearisation plan. However, sanctions relief and the unfreezing of Iranian assets would depend on concrete Iranian steps to dismantle its nuclear programme in the second phase.
Notably, Rubio did not list restrictions on Iran’s missile programme or its regional proxy networks as formal conditions.
The proposed framework resembles Trump’s April 8 ceasefire announcement, but there is one major difference: Washington now appears more willing to accept Iran’s demand for a phased agreement. In return, Iran has softened its earlier insistence on a total cessation of hostilities before entering the second phase of negotiations.
There has also been movement on Iran’s demand to regain access to part of its frozen assets. Tehran had sought the release of at least half of the $12 billion held in Qatari banks. Doha has reportedly helped craft a compromise involving a $6 billion Qatari credit line restricted to humanitarian and civilian purchases.
Despite severe economic pressure, Iran may still be able to sustain the current standoff for several months through its long-established resistance economy. But if the Hormuz deadlock continues, energy analysts warn that oil prices could rise to between $120 and $150 a barrel. If the Houthis also close Bab-el-Mandeb, prices could climb even higher.
For Trump, resolving the Lebanon crisis is therefore essential to finalising a US-Iran understanding and reopening Hormuz. Yet there is concern that Washington may not maintain long-term focus once the immediate pressure eases, similar to what happened after the Gaza ceasefire.
A temporary reopening of Hormuz would provide relief to the global economy, but it would not end regional instability. Gulf states are likely to accelerate plans for alternative pipeline routes that bypass the Hormuz bottleneck, while major oil importers such as India may move more quickly to diversify their energy supplies.
The current pause may cool Operation Epic Fury, but the deeper regional contest remains unresolved.
Follow the latest news on Google News
