TEHRAN - Israel renewed deadly airstrikes in the southern suburbs of Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, on Sunday, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government attempts to gloss over its “strategic” defeat and “isolation” in the war on Iran.

Several people were killed in the attacks that targeted the Dahiyeh district. The Israeli military claimed it struck a Hezbollah base after the resistance group fired drones toward Israel.

The strikes are a clear violation of the ceasefire between Tehran and Washington on April 8, which paused the joint US-Israeli war on Iran. As confirmed by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, the truce that followed 39 days of war entailed halting Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

On June 7, Israel also bombed the Dahiyeh district, which was met with Iranian retaliation. Iranian armed forces struck strategic and military sites in Israel in response to the attacks in southern Beirut, warning of “much more intense and crushing measures than before” if the Netanyahu government continues its acts of aggression.

The announcement of a yet-to-be-finalized memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States was expected to halt Israeli strikes in Lebanon. Based on the 14-point MoU that is set to pave the way for permanently ending the February 28 US-Israeli aggression against Iran, Tel Aviv must stop attacking Lebanon.

However, fresh attacks suggest that Israel is seeking to sabotage that agreement.

Iranian officials have renewed warnings over Israel’s latest escalation.

“The Zionist aggression against Dahiyeh once again showed that the United States either lacks the will to fulfill its commitments or is incapable of doing so,” Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and top negotiator in talks with Washington, said in a post on X.

“By giving the green light to the regime, you cannot extract concessions. The game of bad cop and good cop is outdated. If you lack the will and ability to fulfill your commitments, speaking of continuing the path is not possible,” Qalibaf added.

President Donald Trump has adopted a contradictory stance regarding a peace deal with Iran as well as Israel’s strikes in Lebanon.

Trump has often tried to distance himself from Israeli military operations in Lebanon. However, Iranian officials say Israel does not attack Lebanon without approval from Washington.
Following Sunday’s Israeli strikes, Trump wrote on Truth Social that the attacks “should not have happened.”

Axios, however, reported that Israel notified CENTCOM about its strike in the Dahiyeh district shortly before the attack, which corroborates Iran’s narrative.

The US president needs a deal with Iran to exit what many experts describe as a quagmire, which has contributed to rising energy prices and inflation in the United States, in addition to pushing his popularity to near-record lows.

Nonetheless, Israel’s continued adventurism in Lebanon will further hamper Trump’s efforts to extricate himself from the conflict with Iran.

A recent report by Israel Hayom has described the war with Iran as a “strategic loss” for Israel. It said the war has weakened Israel, while Iran has emerged stronger from the conflict.
“This is the direct result of flawed management, mixed with wishful thinking, at the strategic level,” the Israeli outlet wrote.
Israel Hayom said Israel has failed to carry out regime change in Iran, remove hundreds of highly enriched uranium stockpiles, dismantle Iran’s missile program, or bring an end to Iran’s support for Hezbollah.

Amid Israel’s failed military strategy against Iran, its latest escalation against Lebanon has raised serious questions. First and foremost, it is evident that Netanyahu leaves no stone unturned in attempting to derail talks between Tehran and Washington.

A possible scenario is that Netanyahu ordered his army to attack Lebanon and, in response to a possible Iranian military retaliation, escalate the situation further. A fresh round of conflict could dissuade Iran from signing the MoU with the US. In this way, he could also embolden Trump once again to renew confrontation with Iran.

But based on acknowledgments in Israeli media and comments from American officials speaking to US media, continued conflict would work to the detriment of Washington, although it could benefit Netanyahu despite Israel’s strategic setbacks against Iran.

This is because a permanent state of conflict could help sustain Netanyahu’s political survival as he faces corruption charges and criticism from rivals who accuse him of turning Israel into Washington’s “vassal state.”

The Israeli strikes on Beirut highlight the gap between diplomacy and events on the ground. From Tehran’s perspective, as reflected in Qalibaf’s remarks, the attacks reinforce doubts about the United States’ ability—or willingness—to restrain Israel during sensitive negotiations, raising questions about the credibility of Washington’s commitments. This suggests that even if talks with Iran move forward, Israeli military actions can still undermine the process and cast doubt on the reliability of the diplomatic track.