They're Calling it the Shortest Ceasefire in History

I ended yesterday's blog post by suggesting that the ceasefire to which cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump and Iranian leaders had agreed would not last and that the two sides would not reach a peace agreement. As I pointed out, there are a wide range of opponents of the proposed agreement between the United States and Iran. These include Trump supporters (and some opponents) who want to see Iran soundly defeated, petroleum industry executives who don't want to be subject to Iran's proposed toll for traversing the Strait of Hormuz, Trump's Gulf Arab allies who have provided him with billions of dollars, and, of course, Israel. Of these, the largest threat to the ceasefire and a subsequent peace agreement is Israel.

On June 13, 2025, Israeli forces launched a surprise attack on Iran, bombing a range of targets including military bases, anti-aircraft defenses, and nuclear facilities. Eight days later, U.S. aircraft joined the fighting and bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. After the start of the current war against Iran, U.S. officials, including Trump, were unable to explain why they had started the war. At one point, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that Israel was going to attack Iran regardless of what the U.S. wanted and that Iran would likely retaliate against U.S. targets. Therefore, it was better for the U.S. to join the attack at the beginning. This explanation was soon dropped, however, because the suggestion that Israel had dragged the U.S. into a war was not politically palatable. Nevertheless, Rubio's explanation is very important for understanding future U.S.-Iran relations.

Today, Rick Perlstein published a Substack article titled, "Hip-Hinged to the Unhinged". Perlstein explains that after the attack on the Minab girls’ elementary school that killed 150 or more school girls, he realized that it didn't matter whether the U.S. or Israel was responsible for the bombing. Either way, the U.S. would be held responsible. This was exactly the same sort of thinking that Rubio had earlier demonstrated. Iran sees the U.S. and Israel as so tightly bonded that it barely distinguishes between the two. Moreover, there is some justification for Iran's thinking.

I don't think there is any need to explain the special position Israel holds in American politics. Both major political parties have long competed to see who could do more for Israel. Former President Joe Biden deployed an aircraft carrier to help protect Israel from earlier Iranian rocket attacks. Biden's support for Israel after the October 8 attack by Hamas was unconditional. Biden refused even the slightest criticism as Israel engaged in genocide in Gaza. In return, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly humiliated Biden and made no secret of his support for Trump. Former Vice President Kamala Harris caused severe, perhaps even fatal, harm to her presidential campaign by keeping critics of Israel at arm’s length and refusing to deviate from total support for Israel. Israel depends on the U.S. militarily, economically, and diplomatically. It is completely reasonable to believe that Israel cannot act without U.S. support, and there is no reason to believe that such support would not be forthcoming. As a result, when Israel acts, it can be assumed that it is with U.S. support or, at minimum, tolerance.

In Perlstein's Substack, he argues that this close relationship dooms U.S. relations with Iran because, "We cannot credibly promise not to bomb Iran, because we have tied ourselves at the hip to another country, Israel, who might keep bombing them no matter what we say or do." This is not hyperbole. In June, the U.S. joined an attack on Iran that Israel started and joined the current war, apparently, because Israel was going to start it. In both cases, the U.S. was engaged in negotiations with Iran at the time, causing no end to the suspicion that the Iranians have about current negotiations.

What's more, Israel is already proving Perlstein’s point. On April 7, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, who had previously proposed a two-week ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran, posted on X the following:

With the greatest humility, I am pleased to announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

I've added the bolding to highlight that Lebanon was included in the ceasefire to which both Iran and the U.S., as well as their allies, were said to have agreed. Netanyahu almost immediately said that Lebanon was not covered by the ceasefire, and Israel launched devastating attacks on civilian areas of Beirut. Over 254 people were killed in the attacks. The International Committee of the Red Cross rarely takes political positions, but reacted to the Israeli attacks by saying that it was "outraged." Iran immediately protested that this was a violation of the ceasefire agreement, but both Trump and Vice President JD Vance agreed with Israel that Lebanon was not included in the agreement.

After the attacks, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi tweeted that "the U.S. must choose — ceasefire or continued war via Israel. It cannot have both." This perfectly illustrated Perlstein's argument. The ceasefire was not even 24 hours old and already was endangered by Israel's actions. There was no sense in trying to distance the U.S. from Israel because nobody would believe it. Instead, the U.S. preferred to ignore the plain text of the agreement to which it had agreed.

This is not a one-off dilemma for the United States. Rather, it is structural. Netanyahu's position in Israel is very weak. He is under indictment and must attend court every few days. He has leaned on Trump to pressure Israel's President, Isaac Herzog, to grant Netanyahu a pardon. So far, Herzog has resisted. Netanyahu has also gone to war with Israel's democratic institutions, neutering other power centers one-by-one in order to increase his own authority. Netanyahu is critically reliant on a band of extremists, some of whom are convicted terrorists, to maintain his rule. These lunatics have no interest in peace, and it is not at all clear that Netanyahu does not share their feelings. To the contrary, all indications are that war is Netanyahu's primary means of retaining support.

As a result, nobody, least of all Iran, can trust agreements with the U.S. because there is no faith in the U.S.'s ability to control Israel and no expectation that Israel will stop its attacks. In essence, Israel has veto power over any U.S. peace agreement, and there doesn't seem to be anything that the U.S. is willing to do about it.

To be sure, even if Israel were removed from the equation, the current ceasefire agreement would face considerable opposition from other quarters. But Israel has an almost exclusive capability to upend it, even if that is against what the U.S. considers to be its interests. Given the clear opposition to a peace agreement between the U.S. and Iran among Netanyahu and his domestic allies, it is extremely unlikely that any such agreement will be reached. More likely is that the current ceasefire will not hold, and that fighting will soon restart.