Iran strikes Israeli airbases after Beirut attacks, escalating regional tensions

19

Why Iran Accused the US of Enabling Israel’s Strikes

Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, framed the latest escalation as a direct consequence of US policy, declaring that “the actions of the Zionist entity within the region cannot be looked at in isolation from the United States.” According to The Guardian, Baghaei went further, stating that “no one believes that the Israeli regime would take any action without coordination with the United States.” The Iranian position reflects a long-standing narrative in Tehran: that Washington’s backing for Israel is the root cause of regional instability, and that any escalation will ultimately be blamed on the US.

The claim carries weight in Tehran’s calculus. Since the April ceasefire, Israel has continued targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon—a move Iran views as a direct attack on its proxy forces. Iranian media reported explosions in Tehran, Tabriz, and Isfahan following Israel’s strikes on Iranian radar sites and a petrochemical complex in Mahshahr. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) confirmed it had hit Nevatim and Tel Nof airbases in retaliation, though Israel’s military said it had detected a new barrage of missiles shortly afterward. The back-and-forth underscores a dangerous dynamic: neither side appears willing to back down, even as US President Donald Trump reportedly urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid further action.

The timing of the strikes—just days after Trump spoke with Netanyahu—raises questions about whether the US is losing leverage. Trump’s public comments, including his assertion to Al Jazeera that “I call the shots. He doesn’t call the shots,” suggest he believes he can contain Netanyahu. But Netanyahu’s refusal to halt operations in Lebanon—despite Trump’s pleas—hints at a deeper divide. The prime minister’s far-right National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, amplified the hawkish stance with a blunt warning: “Tehran must burn.” The contrast between Trump’s diplomatic rhetoric and Netanyahu’s military posture risks undermining any US effort to broker a broader ceasefire.

The Ceasefire’s Collapse: A Timeline of Missteps

1. February 28, 2026: Joint US-Israel airstrikes on Iranian territory trigger Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil prices soaring and disrupting global shipping.
2. April 2026: A US-brokered ceasefire is announced, aimed at reopening the Strait and stabilizing energy markets. The agreement includes a halt to hostilities in Lebanon.
3. June 7, 2026: Israel launches airstrikes on Hezbollah positions in Beirut’s southern suburbs, killing two civilians. Iran condemns the attack as a violation of the ceasefire.
4. June 8, 2026: Iran retaliates with missile strikes on Israeli airbases. Israel responds with additional strikes on Iranian radar sites and a petrochemical complex. The Houthis in Yemen announce a ban on Israeli maritime navigation in the Red Sea.

The ceasefire’s unraveling follows a pattern of broken promises. Iran had insisted the truce required a complete halt to attacks “on all fronts,” yet Israel continued its campaign in Lebanon. The Lebanese state news agency reported that Sunday’s strikes hit residential areas, a move that could further inflame public opinion in Iran and across the region. Meanwhile, the Houthis’ threat to block the Red Sea—another critical shipping lane—adds a third axis of pressure on global trade routes.

What the Oil Market Reaction Reveals About the Stakes

The immediate economic fallout from the renewed hostilities is already being felt. Brent crude oil jumped above $97 a barrel on Monday, the highest level since the February strikes that triggered Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. The surge reflects investor fears that the conflict could spread further, disrupting oil flows from the Persian Gulf. According to Al Jazeera, the price spike underscores how tightly the region’s security is tied to global energy markets—a dynamic that gives Iran significant leverage.

Iran’s threats to target “all energy targets in the region” if Israel continues its campaign are not idle. The country has demonstrated a willingness to use economic coercion as a weapon, from its 2023 attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea to its February strikes on tankers. The current escalation risks drawing the US into a more direct role, as Washington has repeatedly framed the Strait of Hormuz’s reopening as a key objective. But with Trump’s authority over Netanyahu in question—and Netanyahu’s domestic political constraints making de-escalation politically risky—the path to a resolution remains unclear.

The Trump Factor: Can the US Still Play Peacemaker?

Trump’s involvement adds a layer of unpredictability to the crisis. His public statements suggest he believes he can control Netanyahu, but his administration’s ability to enforce discipline on Israel has been tested before. In 2023, Trump’s efforts to limit Israeli strikes in Gaza were undermined by Netanyahu’s hardline allies in the security cabinet. This time, the stakes are higher: a full-blown war between Israel and Iran could drag in US forces, risking a regional conflagration.

Trump’s claim that he “calls all the shots” may resonate with his base, but it ignores the reality of Netanyahu’s political survival. The Israeli prime minister faces pressure from his far-right coalition partners, who see any concession to Iran as a betrayal. Meanwhile, Trump’s own foreign policy team—including figures like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—has a history of aligning closely with Israel’s military objectives. The tension between Trump’s public posturing and the practical constraints of his administration could either accelerate a diplomatic solution or push the region toward a wider war.

“The United States bears responsibility for the Israeli regime’s aggression, and it will also be responsible for the consequences of any escalation in tensions.”

— Esmail Baghaei, Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson, via <a href="https://www.theguardian.

What Comes Next: Three Possible Scenarios

The next 30 days will determine whether the region slides into war or whether a fragile détente can be restored. Three scenarios are most likely:

1. Limited Escalation: Iran and Israel continue targeted strikes but avoid direct military confrontation. The US pressures both sides to return to negotiations, focusing on reopening the Strait of Hormuz as a carrot for de-escalation.
2. Regional Spillover: Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Iranian proxies expand their attacks on Israel and US interests, drawing the US into direct military responses. This could trigger a broader conflict involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or even Russia.
3. Diplomatic Breakthrough: Trump leverages his personal relationship with Netanyahu to force a ceasefire, coupled with Iranian concessions on the Strait of Hormuz. This would require Netanyahu to overrule his hardliners—a politically risky move.

The most dangerous variable remains Iran’s willingness to escalate further. The IRGC’s threats to target “all energy targets in the region” suggest Tehran is prepared to use economic warfare as a deterrent. Meanwhile, Israel’s military response—including strikes on Iranian soil—signals that Netanyahu is not backing down. Without a clear off-ramp, the risk of miscalculation grows. The question is no longer whether the ceasefire will hold, but how far the conflict will spread before either side blinks.

One thing is certain: the global economy is already paying the price. With oil prices climbing and shipping lanes under threat, the cost of inaction may soon outweigh the benefits of further confrontation. The challenge for Trump, Netanyahu, and Iranian leaders alike is to find a way out before the region burns.

<!– /wp:paragraph Analysts warn that the delicate balance of regional alliances may now face unprecedented strain, leaving both Washington and Tehran navigating uncharted territory amid rising fears of further destabilization.