With thanks to Israel Realtime
For the past several days there are lots of questions that need answering
Not about a specific Hezbollah attack.
Not about a specific statement from Washington.
Not even about the details of the latest U.S.-Iran negotiations.
The question is much simpler: How did
the pressure suddenly shift from Iran to Israel?
Only a short time ago, Iran appeared
to be on the defensive. Israel and the United States were closely coordinated.
Tehran and its proxies were under pressure. Hezbollah was constrained. The
strategic momentum appeared to be moving in one direction.
Today, many Israelis feel as though
the entire table has somehow been turned.
Whether that perception is fully
accurate or not, it is worth examining why so many people have reached that
conclusion.
The first thing that stands out is
that the pressure did not only shift onto Israel, it appears to have shifted
back onto America as well.
The United States was also presenting
the Strait of Hormuz as a point of American leverage. The message was clear:
Iran was surrounded, pressured, weakened, and unable to freely control the
regional equation. Then came the ceasefire framework. From that moment, the
logic of the arena changed.
After the ceasefire, Washington's
priority shifted toward preserving the U.S.-Iran diplomatic track, stabilizing
the region, reopening Hormuz, protecting global energy flows, and keeping
negotiations alive.
That created a dangerous opening for
Iran.
Tehran appears to have understood that
once Washington became invested in protecting the agreement, Iran could use
both Lebanon and Hormuz as leverage.
That is the deeper strategic reversal.
The pressure did not only shift onto Israel. It also shifted back onto America.
Hormuz was supposed to be the symbol
of American leverage over Iran. Instead, Iran is trying to turn Hormuz back
into leverage over America. Because if Iran can threaten the Strait of Hormuz,
pressure global energy markets, and then extract concessions through
negotiations, the lesson for Tehran is obvious: Hormuz works.
Iran was militarily weakened. Its air
defenses were hit. Its navy was pressured. Its regional infrastructure was
damaged. But through Hormuz, Tehran still had a way to threaten the global
system. That is why the negotiation looks so troubling from an Israeli
perspective.
America had pressure on Iran.
Israel had pressure on Iran.
Iran's proxies were under pressure.
Hormuz was being used by Washington as a pressure point.
Then the ceasefire framework appears
to have allowed Iran to reverse the equation. Instead of Iran being forced to
prove it would stop threatening Hormuz and restrain its proxies, Israel and
America are now the ones being pressured to avoid actions that might collapse
the deal.
That is the strategic inversion. The
pattern is becoming clear:
Hezbollah attacks.
Israel responds.
Iran accuses Israel of endangering the
broader agreement.
The United States tries to preserve
the diplomatic track.
Pressure shifts onto Israel.
That is the trap.
The problem is not that America is
negotiating with Iran. The United States is free to pursue its own diplomatic
track if it believes that serves American interests.
The problem is that Iran appears to be
trying to turn that U.S.-Iran track into a restraint on both Israel and
America. On Israel, by limiting its freedom of action against Hezbollah.
That is what makes this so troubling.
If the agreement is about Iran,
nuclear de-escalation, Hormuz, sanctions, or regional stability, then why
should Israel be expected to absorb Hezbollah attacks in Lebanon?
Iran's conduct suggests it is testing
whether it can enjoy the benefits of diplomacy while preserving the coercive
power of its proxy network and its control over strategic chokepoints.
Tehran wants sanctions relief, oil
revenue, access to global markets, and reduced pressure. At the same time, it
wants Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Iranian-backed forces to remain tools
of pressure against Israel, regional states, global shipping, and Western
interests.
That cannot become the new normal.
A diplomatic agreement that restrains
Iran is one thing. A diplomatic agreement that restrains Israel while Iran's
proxies keep attacking is something very different.
A diplomatic agreement that reopens
Hormuz only because Iran has demonstrated it can threaten Hormuz again is also
something very different.
That would not be de-escalation. That
would be reward for coercion.
The repeated Hezbollah attacks against
IDF forces should not be viewed as isolated skirmishes. They appear to fit into
a broader Iranian strategy: keep pressure on Israel through Hezbollah, then
blame Israel when it responds, while warning that the wider U.S.-Iran track may
collapse.
That gives Tehran a powerful tool. It
can attack indirectly, negotiate directly, and then demand restraint from the
country being attacked.
If that equation is accepted,
Hezbollah becomes more than a proxy. Hezbollah becomes a bargaining chip
protected by diplomacy.
Instead of: Hezbollah attacks → Hezbollah pays a price.
The equation becomes: Hezbollah attacks → Israel responds → Iran threatens the talks → pressure shifts onto Israel.
And with Hormuz, the equation becomes: Iran threatens shipping → markets panic → America seeks calm → Iran gains leverage.
That is exactly the structure Tehran
wants to create.
The West's real test is not whether it
can sign an agreement with Iran.
The real test is whether it can
prevent Iran from using that agreement as cover for continued proxy aggression
and strategic blackmail.
Because if the message Tehran receives
is that it can threaten Hormuz, activate Hezbollah, pressure global markets,
and still move toward relief and reintegration, then the lesson will be
obvious:
Escalation works. Proxy warfare works. Hormuz works. Regional blackmail works.
And Israel is left facing the
consequences on the ground. Both Washington and Jerusalem need to recognize the
game being played.
Iran is trying to turn the ceasefire
from a restraint on Tehran into a restraint on Israel.
It is trying to turn Hormuz from a
point of American pressure into a point of Iranian leverage.
That is the danger. And that is why so
many Israelis feel that the entire table has suddenly turned.
