Israel launched attacks across Iran overnight, with explosions reported in Tehran, Tabriz, Qarazi and Isfahan, marking the most serious escalation between the two countries since a fragile ceasefire was established in April.
The attack came hours after Iran fired a barrage of missiles into northern Israel, accusing Israel of repeated ceasefire violations through its ongoing military operations in Lebanon. Israel says it is targeting the militant group Hezbollah, Tehran’s closest ally, in the country.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
On Monday, US President Donald Trump called on both countries to stop attacking each other.
“Israel and Iran should stop ‘shooting’ immediately,” he said in a short post on his Truth Social platform. Analysts say there may be major differences between the United States and Israel over how to handle negotiations with Iran.
Here’s what we know so far:
What happened?
Tensions have been building for the past few days. Despite a US-led “ceasefire” jointly announced by Israel and Lebanon on June 4, Israel on Sunday attacked Beirut’s southern suburbs, killing at least two people and wounding 20 others.
Hours after these attacks, Iran fired missiles into northern Israel in what Tehran described as retaliation for the Beirut attack. They were largely thwarted, with debris falling as far away as Jordan and the West Bank on its way to Israel, reports said.
Israel counterattacked with nighttime attacks on central and western Iran, and Iran subsequently launched a second wave of attacks.
According to Israeli media outlet Haaretz, Iran has launched a total of about 30 ballistic missiles since Sunday night.
Missiles were also fired from Yemen, with the Houthis claiming responsibility on Monday, while Hezbollah remains engaged in repelling Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon.
On Monday morning, the Saudi Civil Defense issued an alert for Al-Khalj province, warning residents of potential security threats and urging them to evacuate. However, Iranian state broadcaster IRIB later quoted military officials denying reports that Iran had attacked Khalji Air Base.
This is Iran’s first direct missile attack on Israel since the Pakistan-brokered ceasefire announcement on April 8. It is also the first time that Iran has retaliated against Israeli attacks in Lebanon, which have occurred almost daily since early March, by firing missiles directly from Iranian territory. The attack came after Iran repeatedly warned that an Israeli attack on Beirut’s southern suburbs would trigger a counterattack.
The exchange also further ties the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict to the ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations, as Tehran has repeatedly insisted that a genuine cessation of Israeli military operations in Lebanon, where Israeli forces occupy about a fifth of the country, depends on it.
Analysts say the escalation could completely change the nature of the conflict that has been going on since the ceasefire, testing the limits of what both sides consider an acceptable violation of the April 8 ceasefire between Iran and the United States while it technically remains in place.
Was Israel hostile to the United States?
U.S. President Donald Trump insisted late Sunday night that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must ultimately accept any deal negotiated between the U.S. and Tehran because the U.S. president “has the say.”
“He has no choice,” Trump told the Financial Times in a telephone interview. “I call the shots. I call all the shots. He doesn’t call the shots.”
President Trump’s comments came shortly after Iran fired a ballistic missile toward Israel overnight Sunday, in what is seen as the most serious violation of the ceasefire framework established in April.
But just hours after President Trump’s comments and U.S. media reports suggesting Washington was urging restraint, Israel struck targets inside Iran.
It remains unclear whether the apparent gulf between the United States and Israel reflects a genuine disagreement. Reports of tense conversations between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu have repeatedly surfaced in recent weeks, but the United States has always maintained steadfast support for Israel.
On Monday morning, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee claimed in X that Iran aims to “incinerate” not only Israel but also the United States.
Some analysts say Israel’s actions risk undermining President Trump’s authority in the region. “By defying Trump, Israel not only challenged Iran’s new equation, but also undermined Trump’s credibility,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible States and Strategy.
“If Israel’s defiance has no consequences, it will reinforce the view in Iran that President Trump cannot or will not restrain Israel.”
Observers say the growing disconnect between Washington’s calls for restraint and Israel’s desire to escalate could be one of the defining fault lines shaping the next phase of the conflict.
What does this mean for Lebanon’s “ceasefire”?
The conflict between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, once thought to be a separate conflict from the US-Israel-Iran war, has been at the center of this recent regional escalation.
Although the first US-brokered ceasefire was announced on April 16, Israeli forces continue to invade and occupy southern Lebanon. The advance is Israel’s deepest incursion into Lebanese territory in more than a quarter of a century. Israeli forces currently control about 2,000 square kilometers (770 square miles), roughly a fifth of Lebanese territory.
More than 3,000 people have been killed in Lebanon since early March, and more than 1 million people have been forced to flee their homes in the south.
Israel also continues to carry out regular attacks on Beirut’s southern suburbs, which it claims are Hezbollah strongholds. More than 600 people have been killed in Lebanon since the ceasefire took effect.
A pivotal moment in this latest escalation came last week when Israel threatened to attack Dahiyeh, a southern suburb of Beirut, and issued an evacuation warning. Israeli officials said the threat was related to Hezbollah attacks on northern Israel. Analysts see the move as part of a broader effort by Israel to redefine the boundaries of the conflict, creating a trade-off in which attacks on Israel lead to attacks on Beirut’s southern suburbs.
However, these new rules of engagement never materialized as Iran indicated that an Israeli attack on Dahiyeh would have repercussions beyond the Lebanese border and that an attack on Beirut could provoke direct Iranian retaliation.
The warning prompted a last-ditch diplomatic effort by President Trump, who said he had spoken with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while reports emerged that Washington was pressuring Israel to avoid a broader escalation. President Trump also claimed to have been in contact with Hezbollah, an unusual claim given that the organization is designated a so-called “terrorist” organization by the U.S. government and that no U.S. president has ever dealt directly or indirectly with the organization.
The Trump administration announced on June 3 that Israel and Lebanon had agreed to a new US-brokered ceasefire, which Hezbollah immediately rejected. The proposed deal calls for Hezbollah to withdraw north of the Litani River, but there is no corresponding commitment to Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon, with Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz insisting that military operations there would continue.
Analysts argue that the United States and Israel are trying to separate the Lebanon conflict from broader negotiations between the United States and Iran. Recent intervention by the Iranian government suggests that effort may have failed.
Dr. Hamidreza Azizi, an Iranian foreign policy expert at the German Institute for International and Security Studies, noted that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had repeatedly insisted that the ceasefire should apply to all fronts, including Lebanon, and that a violation in one theater is a violation everywhere. Until now, that position has remained largely rhetorical, but Monday’s missile exchange may change that.
Does this mean a return to all-out war?
The Lebanon conflict now appears firmly tied to the broader conflict between Iran and the US-Israel.
Observers say Israel’s continued military operations in southern Lebanon, coupled with repeated attacks on Dahiyeh, are increasingly creating something like a new red line in the region.
“The Iranian government’s decision to respond to the attack on Lebanon with missiles launched from its own territory is an operational development here,” Azizi said.
“This decision embodies Iranian FM Araghchi’s previous formulation that the ceasefire applies to all fronts and a violation on one front is a violation on all fronts.”
Azizi said Iran’s choice to respond directly rather than through Hezbollah or other members of Iran’s so-called “axis of resistance” was particularly important. “This continues a pattern that defined the war: As regional networks thinned out, missile forces became Tehran’s primary means of direct retaliation and coercive signaling.”
At the same time, he noted, Iran’s response appears to be carefully calibrated. “The scale was limited, most were intercepted, and no casualties were reported,” Azizi said.
“The Revolutionary Guards framed widespread strikes against all American and Israeli targets as an emergency prepared for repeat, suggesting deterrence and leverage rather than a push toward all-out war.”
The key question now is whether the United States will become directly involved. It seems unlikely at this point, given President Trump’s repeated insistence that a broad ceasefire is still achievable, and the U.S. government’s clear desire to avoid another regional war, especially since the impact on oil prices related to U.S. market volatility would be detrimental to the U.S. economy.
Iran also maintains significant influence. Despite heightened tensions, there have been no confirmed attacks on U.S. military facilities in the Gulf. Analysts say direct U.S. intervention could dramatically increase the risk of Iranian retaliation against military facilities and infrastructure in the region, something the U.S. and its Gulf allies, home to most of those assets, want to avoid.
But Azizi said recent events demonstrate Iran’s belief that military pressure, not just diplomacy, will yield influence.
“This pattern strengthens the argument that Tehran’s security-minded elites have spent months making: that their influence is built on demonstrated strength, and that concessions follow force, not words,” he said.
Israel has adopted a similar perception of the conflict, which is also “shaped by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s domestic position and his determination to respond to a direct Iranian attack.”
“Given the gap between Washington’s preference for restraint and Israel’s preference for response, a new escalation cycle will most likely begin,” Azizi added.
