Israel launched attacks across Iran overnight, with explosions reported in Tehran, Tabriz, Karaj and Isfahan, marking the most serious escalation between the two countries since a fragile ceasefire took hold in April.
The attacks came hours after Iran fired a wave of missiles towards northern Israel, accusing Israel of repeatedly violating the ceasefire through its ongoing military operations in Lebanon – which Israel says are targeting the armed 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 sides to stop attacking each other.
“Israel and Iran must immediately stop ‘shooting’,” he said in a brief post on his Truth Social platform. Analysts say a major disagreement between the US and Israel over how to handle talks with Iran may be emerging.
Here is what we know so far.
What has happened?
Tensions have been building for days. On Sunday, Israel struck Beirut’s southern suburbs, killing at least two people and wounding 20, despite another United States-led “ceasefire” announced jointly by Israel and Lebanon on June 4.
Hours after those attacks, Iran launched missiles towards northern Israel in what Tehran described as retaliation for the Beirut attack. These were largely intercepted, according to reports, with debris falling as far away as Jordan and the West Bank en route to Israel.
Israel responded with overnight attacks on central and western Iran, while Tehran has since launched a second wave of attacks.
According to Israeli media outlet Haaretz, Iran has launched about 30 ballistic missiles in total since Sunday night.
Missiles have also been launched from Yemen, with the Houthis claiming responsibility on Monday, while Hezbollah has remained engaged in repelling Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon.
On Monday morning, Saudi Arabia’s Civil Defence issued an alert in Al-Kharj governorate, warning residents of a potential security threat and urging people to seek shelter. However, Iranian state broadcaster IRIB later cited a military official denying reports that Iran had attacked the Al-Kharj airbase.
This is the first direct Iranian missile attack on Israel since the Pakistan-brokered April 8 ceasefire was announced. It is also the first time Tehran has retaliated against Israeli attacks in Lebanon – which have been occurring near-daily since early March – by launching missiles directly from Iranian territory. The attack came after repeated warnings from Iran that an Israeli strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs would trigger a response.
This exchange also further intertwines the Israel-Hezbollah conflict with ongoing US-Iran negotiations, as Tehran has repeatedly insisted that progress in talks with Washington depends on a genuine halt to Israeli military operations in Lebanon, where Israeli forces have occupied about one-fifth of the country.
Analysts say the latest escalation could reshape the way the conflict has continued since the ceasefire, testing the limits of what each side considers an acceptable violation of the April 8 ceasefire between Iran and the US while the truce technically remains in place.
Has Israel gone against the US?
US President Donald Trump insisted late on Sunday night that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would ultimately have to accept any agreement negotiated between Washington and Tehran because the US president “calls the shots”.
“He won’t have any 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.”
Trump’s remarks came shortly after Iran launched ballistic missiles overnight on Sunday towards Israel, in what appeared to be the most serious breach of the ceasefire framework established in April.
But just hours after Trump’s comments and US media reports suggesting Washington was urging restraint, Israel struck targets inside Iran.
Whether the apparent gap between Washington and Israel reflects a genuine disagreement remains unclear. Reports of tense conversations between Trump and Netanyahu have surfaced repeatedly in recent weeks, but the US has always maintained its steadfast support for Israel.
On Monday morning, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee claimed on X that Iran was not only aiming to “incinerate” Israel, but also the US.
Some analysts say Israel’s actions risk eroding Trump’s authority in the region. “By defying Trump, Israel has done more than challenge Iran’s new equation; it has also undermined Trump’s credibility,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
“If Israel’s defiance carries no consequences, it will reinforce the view in Iran that Trump either cannot or will not restrain Israel.”
The growing divergence between Washington’s calls for restraint and Israel’s willingness to escalate may become one of the defining fault lines shaping this next phase of the conflict, observers say.
What does this mean for the Lebanon ‘ceasefire’?
The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which was at times considered a separate conflict to the US-Israel-Iran war, is at the centre of this latest regional escalation.
Although a first US-brokered ceasefire was announced on April 16, Israeli forces have continued their invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon. This advance is Israel’s deepest incursion into Lebanese territory in more than a quarter of a century. Israeli troops now control roughly 2,000 square kilometres (770 square miles) of Lebanese land – nearly one-fifth of the country’s territory.
Since early March, more than 3,000 people have been killed in Lebanon, and more than one million have been displaced from their homes in the south.
Israel has also continued periodic attacks on Beirut’s southern suburbs, which it claims are a Hezbollah stronghold. More than 600 people have been killed in Lebanon since the ceasefire took effect.
A pivotal moment of this latest escalation came last week when Israel threatened to attack the south Beirut suburb of Dahiyeh and issued forced displacement warnings. Israeli officials said the threat was linked to Hezbollah attacks on northern Israel. Analysts viewed the move as part of a broader effort by Israel to redefine the conflict’s boundaries, creating a trade-off where any attack on Israel would lead to a strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs.
But these new rules of engagement never came to fruition as Tehran signalled that any Israeli strike on Dahiyeh would carry consequences beyond Lebanon’s borders and that attacks on Beirut could trigger direct Iranian retaliation.
That warning prompted last-minute diplomatic efforts from Trump, who said he had spoken with Netanyahu, while reports emerged that Washington was pressing Israel to avoid a broader escalation. Trump also claimed he had communicated with Hezbollah, an extraordinary assertion given the group’s designation by Washington as a so-called “terrorist” organisation and the fact that no US president has ever dealt either directly or indirectly with the group.
The Trump administration on June 3 announced that Israel and Lebanon had agreed to a new US-mediated ceasefire, which was immediately rejected by Hezbollah. The proposed arrangement called for Hezbollah to withdraw north of the Litani River, but made no corresponding commitment regarding an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, while Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz insisted military operations would continue there.
Analysts argue that Washington and Israel were attempting to separate the Lebanon conflict from broader negotiations between the US and Iran. Tehran’s latest intervention suggests that effort may have failed.
Dr Hamidreza Azizi, an Iranian foreign policy specialist at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, pointed out that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had repeatedly argued that the ceasefire must apply across all fronts – including Lebanon – and that a violation in one theatre constituted a violation everywhere. Until now, that position remained largely rhetorical, but Monday’s missile exchange may have changed that.
Does this mean a return to all-out war?
The conflict in Lebanon now appears firmly linked to the wider confrontation between Iran and the US-Israel.
Israel’s continued military operations in southern Lebanon, coupled with repeated attacks on Dahiyeh, have created what increasingly looks like a new regional red line, observers say.
“Tehran’s decision to answer a strike on Lebanon with missiles launched from its own soil is the operative development here,” Azizi said.
“That decision gives concrete form to Iranian FM Araghchi’s earlier formulation that the ceasefire applies on all fronts, and that its violation on one front is a violation on all.”
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 significant. “This continues a pattern that has defined the war: As the regional network has thinned, the missile force has become Tehran’s primary tool for direct retaliation and coercive signalling.”
At the same time, he noted, Iran’s response appears carefully calibrated. “It was limited in scale, largely intercepted, and produced no reported casualties,” Azizi said.
“The IRGC framed wider strikes on all American and Israeli targets as a contingency reserved for repetition, which suggests deterrence and leverage rather than a drive toward full-scale war.”
The critical question now is whether the US will get directly involved. That appears unlikely for now, given Trump’s repeated insistence that a broader ceasefire remains achievable and Washington’s apparent desire to avoid another regional war – particularly because of its effects on oil prices that are tied to US market volatility, damaging the US economy.
Iran also retains significant leverage. Despite heightened tensions, there have been no confirmed attacks on US military assets in the Gulf. Analysts say any direct US intervention could dramatically increase the risk of Iranian retaliation against regional military facilities and infrastructure, something Washington and its Gulf allies, which host the majority of these assets, will be eager to avoid.
However, Azizi said, recent events demonstrate Iran’s belief that military pressure, rather than diplomacy alone, will create leverage.
“That pattern strengthens the argument Tehran’s security-oriented elites have been making for months: That leverage is built through demonstrated strength, and that concessions follow force rather than words,” he said.
Israel adopts a similar perception of the conflict, which is also “shaped by Netanyahu’s domestic position and his commitment to answering any direct Iranian strike”.
“The gap between Washington’s preference for restraint and Israel’s preference for response is where a renewed escalation cycle would most likely begin,” Azizi added.
