‘Let’s not blow it’: Trump calls for restraint after Israel launches fresh airstrikes on Beirut
‘Let’s not blow it’: Trump calls for restraint after Israel launches fresh airstrikes on Beirut
Let s not blow it - On Sunday, Donald Trump urged calm as Israeli air strikes targeted Beirut, casting a shadow over ongoing talks aimed at finalizing a preliminary peace agreement between the United States and Iran. The attacks, which destroyed a building in southern Beirut and left three fatalities, interrupted the progress of negotiations seeking to end a three-month conflict in the Middle East. Trump emphasized the need for all parties to exercise restraint, stating that the deal could mark the start of a lasting peace if everyone avoided further aggression.
Trump’s Call for Calm
Speaking on his social media platform, the former president urged a pause in hostilities, saying, “We are very close to a Deal that will bring peace to the region, including to Lebanon … There should be no more attacks by Israel anywhere in Lebanon, but there should also be no more attacks by any other party, including Hezbollah, against Israel. This could be the beginning of a long and beautiful peace – Let’s not blow it!” His message underscored the delicate balance required to solidify the agreement, even as tensions flared.
Despite his earlier optimism about a potential agreement, Trump acknowledged that the Israeli strikes had delayed the signing process by a few hours. He used a strong word to describe the impact, adding that he had assured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of his support. However, the strikes reignited concerns about the stability of the deal, as Iran’s officials warned of a military response. The timing of the attacks, just as negotiations neared a conclusion, raised questions about their strategic intent.
The Peace Deal in Peril
The Israeli air strikes on Beirut, which targeted senior Hezbollah commanders, were a direct response to the militant group’s recent attacks on northern Israel. Hezbollah, a key ally of Iran, had launched three projectiles into Israeli territory, prompting retaliation. This escalation, however, threatened to derail the fragile progress made in the negotiations. A similar strike a week prior had already triggered a brief but intense round of conflict between Iran and Israel, momentarily destabilizing the talks.
Iranian officials, including Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, a lead negotiator for Tehran, criticized the strikes, suggesting that the US might lack the commitment or capability to enforce the deal. Ghalibaf tweeted on X, stating that the attacks indicated “America either lacks the will to fulfill its commitments or the ability to do so,” and warned that they could jeopardize the final stage of discussions. Meanwhile, Gen Mohammad Jafar Asadi, deputy commander of Iran’s joint command headquarters, declared, “These crimes will not go unanswered,” according to the official Mizan news agency.
Negotiations in the Shadow of Conflict
Regional diplomats reported that Qatari mediators traveled to Tehran on Sunday to finalize the terms of a memorandum of understanding. The document, expected to be signed electronically, would outline the initial steps of the peace deal. Key provisions include Iran’s agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping, a critical route for global oil and gas exports, and the US lifting its economic sanctions on Iran. This move was seen as a potential relief for Iran’s struggling economy, which has faced severe strain due to prolonged conflict and international pressure.
However, the memorandum does not address the most contentious issues, such as Iran’s nuclear program, which will be negotiated in a separate 60-day phase. Analysts have expressed doubt about the feasibility of resolving these complex matters in such a short timeframe. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal, for instance, took nearly two years to finalize, requiring extensive technical discussions and diplomatic maneuvering. Alia Brahimi of the Atlantic Council noted that the current talks face similar challenges, emphasizing the difficulty of achieving a comprehensive agreement in under two months.
Regional Concerns and the Path Forward
Israeli officials have voiced apprehension about the draft agreement, particularly regarding the absence of measures to limit Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities or its support for regional militant groups like Hezbollah. Critics argue that without these provisions, the deal may not fully address the security concerns of Israel, which has been conducting a broad offensive in Lebanon. The occupation of southern Lebanese territory has further complicated the situation, with Israeli troops pushing deeper into the region than ever before.
Netanyahu, who has publicly backed Trump, faces a challenging re-election campaign later this year. His government’s stance on the peace deal has been influenced by domestic pressures, as many Israeli voters remain wary of concessions to Iran. The recent Hezbollah missile attacks, which occurred on March 2nd following the US and Israel’s strikes on Iran, highlighted the group’s role in the conflict and underscored the need for a broader resolution. Despite this, some analysts believe the Iranians prioritize Hezbollah’s influence over Lebanon’s territorial integrity, creating internal divisions within the Iranian delegation.
The emerging agreement, while promising, has yet to secure broad consensus. Qatari mediators are tasked with bridging the gap between the US and Iran, but the strikes in Beirut have added urgency to their efforts. With the memorandum set to be signed, the focus now shifts to the next phase, where the nuclear program will be a central topic. The success of this process will depend on both sides’ willingness to compromise, even as the conflict in Lebanon continues to test their patience.
As the talks progress, the international community watches closely. The deal’s potential to end the Middle East conflict hinges on the ability of all parties to uphold their commitments. Trump’s call for restraint reflects the high stakes of the negotiations, with the hope that this moment could mark a turning point. However, the recent strikes serve as a reminder of the fragility of peace and the persistent tensions that threaten to disrupt the fragile truce.
The Road Ahead
The peace deal, if finalized, would represent a significant shift in the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape. It could reduce hostilities between Iran and Israel while addressing some of Lebanon’s security challenges. Yet, the strikes in Beirut have reignited fears that the agreement may not be enough to prevent future conflicts. The war in Lebanon, which has seen heavy casualties and widespread destruction, remains a flashpoint for both sides.
For Iran, the deal offers economic relief and a chance to reengage with the international community. However, its leaders insist that any agreement must cover all fronts, including the ongoing fighting in Lebanon. This insistence has led to concerns that the US may not be able to satisfy Iran’s demands, particularly given the deepening Israeli involvement in the region. Meanwhile, Israel seeks assurances that Iran will not continue to support militant groups, a key condition for its participation in the deal.
With the talks at a critical juncture, the success of the deal will depend on the ability of Trump and his administration to mediate effectively. The former president’s recent message serves as a reminder of the delicate balance required to achieve peace. As the Middle East braces for a new chapter, the question remains: can the leaders of these nations avoid the mistakes of the past and bring stability to a region that has long been divided?