TEHRAN - A 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon after weeks of intense fighting has drawn widespread reactions across the West Asia region and globally. Tens of thousands of displaced Lebanese began returning home to Beirut’s southern suburbs, as well as towns and villages in southern Lebanon, at dawn on Friday after the truce took effect at midnight on Thursday (2100 GMT). According to UN figures, more than 1.2 million people across Lebanon had been displaced, the majority from the south.

According to Al Jazeera, the coastal highway linking Beirut and Mount Lebanon with the southern cities of Sidon and Tyre witnessed long lines of vehicles carrying returning families. Some displayed victory signs as they headed home, reflecting both relief and a sense of resilience after weeks of bombardment.

However, the ceasefire’s fragility became evident within hours. The Lebanese army accused Israel of violating the agreement, while Lebanon’s National News Agency reported that an ambulance was struck in the border town of Kounine, resulting in casualties among medical workers.

Trump’s diplomatic claims

 US President Donald Trump attempted to take credit for the ceasefire, announcing the truce after what he described as “excellent conversations” with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He stated that both leaders had agreed to begin a 10-day ceasefire as a step toward achieving peace between Israel and Lebanon. 

Following the announcement, Trump invited Netanyahu and Aoun to the White House for what he called “the first meaningful talks between Israel and Lebanon since 1983”.

Hezbollah warning 

The Lebanese government welcomed the ceasefire agreement. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam expressed hope that the deal would allow displaced citizens to return safely to their homes. Hezbollah emphasized that the truce must include a comprehensive halt to attacks across Lebanon and reject any continued operational freedom for Israeli forces. The movement warned that it remains fully prepared to respond to any violations, stating it has its “finger on the trigger.”

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also welcomed the ceasefire, expressing hope that it would pave the way for sustainable peace and reaffirming support for Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Iran’s strategic role and diplomatic positioning

Iran also welcomed the truce, presenting it as a product of both resistance on the ground and sustained diplomatic engagement. In a statement issued Thursday night, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei praised the “legendary perseverance” of the Lebanese people and resistance fighters for standing firm against Israeli aggression. He called for the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon.

Baghaei further described the ceasefire as a direct outcome of Tehran’s diplomatic efforts. He pointed to recent talks between Iran and the United States in Islamabad, mediated by Pakistan, where Iran consistently stressed the necessity of a simultaneous ceasefire across the region, including Lebanon. The talks held on April 11 and 12 did not lead to a final agreement due to what Iran described as excessive US demands. Tehran maintained that any deal must include Lebanon and a halt to Israeli strikes there. Iran’s position linked developments in Lebanon to broader regional negotiations, reinforcing its view of interconnected fronts.

Iran’s Parliament speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf also weighed in. He said, “The ceasefire (in Lebanon) was only achieved thanks to Hezbollah's steadfastness and the unity of the axis of resistance.”

The commander of the IRGC Quds Force, General Esmaeil Qa’ani, also attributed the ceasefire to the steadfast resistance of Lebanon and the strategic support of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Global reactions 

Beyond the region, global reactions followed swiftly. UN Secretary-General António Guterres commended the ceasefire in Lebanon and urged all parties to fully respect it and comply with international law at all times.

European leaders echoed similar sentiments. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described the agreement as a “relief,” emphasizing continued support for Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas stressed that the ceasefire must be used to step back from violence and create space for a more lasting peace.

French President Emmanuel Macron also called on Israel to respect Lebanese sovereignty and end the war.

The military context behind the truce

Renewed fighting erupted between Israel and Hezbollah last month. Israel launched strikes on Lebanon on March 2 in response to attacks by Hezbollah amid the broader repercussions of the US-Israel war on Iran that began on February 28.

Since March 2, more than 2,100 people have been killed and around 7,000 wounded in Israeli attacks on Lebanon, according to the country’s health ministry. This includes more than 300 fatalities from a series of nationwide airstrikes on April 8, which heavily targeted Beirut in what has been described as the largest assault on the capital in decades.

Following the intense bombardment of April 8, the Israeli military halted attacks on Beirut amid mounting pressure ahead of the Islamabad talks between Tehran and Washington. On the same day, Iran and the United States had reached a temporary two-week ceasefire mediated by Pakistan. However, Israeli operations continued in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah forces engaged in fierce confrontations with an advancing ground invasion, leading up to the current truce.

Despite the ceasefire, Netanyahu has stated that Israeli troops will remain stationed up to 10 kilometers in southern Lebanon.  Defense Minister Israel Katz had previously suggested that the occupied zone could extend to the Litani River, approximately 30 kilometers from the border, and indicated that homes in border villages could be demolished. 

Now, reports suggest the ceasefire has sparked anger within Israel. According to the Jerusalem Post, Netanyahu had to agree to the ceasefire under Trump’s pressure. 

Limits of US military power

While Trump has tried to claim credit for the ceasefire, the broader sequence of events points to a more complex and layered reality. The agreement appears to have emerged not from a single diplomatic initiative but from a convergence of sustained military resistance and strategic pressure at multiple levels.

Hezbollah’s continued battlefield resilience played a central role in shaping the conditions that made prolonged conflict increasingly costly for Israel. At the same time, Iran’s approach—combining diplomatic engagement with firm conditions tied to regional de-escalation—helped redefine the framework and introduced clear limits to further escalation.

Iran’s insistence that any diplomatic progress must include a halt to Israeli operations in Lebanon, along with its broader regional posture, contributed to shifting the balance of power. Its ability to link multiple fronts and leverage geopolitical pressure points, including tensions in the Persian Gulf, added further weight to its position. More importantly, Iran’s full control of the Strait of Hormuz has remained a thorn in Trump’s side.  Iran asserted control of the strategic waterway at the beginning of the US-Israel war on February 28.

In this context, the United States, facing mounting regional challenges and limited strategic gains amid the war it jointly launched against Iran with Israel, appears to have moved toward de-escalation, applying pressure on Israel to accept the truce in Lebanon. This suggests that the ceasefire was not merely a goodwill gesture but part of a broader recalibration driven by changing realities on the ground.

Ultimately, the ceasefire highlights the limits of military dominance when confronted with sustained and organized resistance supported by regional alliances. It underscores how Hezbollah’s role, within a wider axis of resistance aligned with Iran, has evolved into a decisive factor in shaping outcomes in Lebanon.

Whether this ceasefire will hold remains uncertain, particularly in light of early violations and unresolved strategic objectives. However, it has already demonstrated that determined resistance, combined with coordinated diplomatic strategy, can compel even powerful actors to reconsider their course—marking a significant moment in the evolving dynamics of the region.