The Wall Street Journal cited sources reporting that, after Israel continued launching large-scale airstrikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran informed mediation facilitator Pakistan that a ceasefire in Lebanon was a precondition for Iran’s participation in upcoming U.S.-Iran talks to be held in Islamabad. Iran also warned it might revoke its decision to open the Strait of Hormuz.

First and foremost, it must be acknowledged that Israel is undermining the ceasefire by targeting Iran’s regional proxies, provoking Iranian retaliation, and thereby disrupting ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations.

Iran’s move, essentially, represents a coherent and firm “package” strategy aimed at ending the conflict, with its core being the "Ten-Point Plan," which includes halting Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

Iran demands that Israel cease attacks on allies within the “resistance axis,” such as Hezbollah, and end all military actions against Iran. In return, Iran is willing to “open the strait” in exchange for war reparations—such as charging $2 million per vessel a “toll fee” for passage to fund reconstruction.

Simultaneously, Iran insists on the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the Middle East, the complete lifting of all sanctions, the unfreezing of overseas assets, or opening the Strait of Hormuz—the most critical leverage Iran holds.

Recent sustained Israeli attacks on Lebanon have directly triggered Tehran’s threats. Given that roughly 20% of global oil passes through this strait, any disruption would immediately impact global energy markets.

Iran’s logic is clear: if the strait is not opened under the premise of “full ceasefire,” Gulf oil cannot be transported, international oil prices will keep rising, exerting immense economic pressure on Western nations like the United States, thus forcing them to make greater concessions in negotiations. Meanwhile, Israel’s escalating attacks on Lebanon are actively sabotaging Trump’s efforts to advance talks.

Although the U.S. and Iran agreed to hold talks in Islamabad on April 10, their positions remain sharply conflicting.

Iran: Emphasizes the necessity of a full-line ceasefire, including in Lebanon.

United States: Core demand is that Iran must “fully, immediately, and safely” reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Israel: Explicitly states that the ceasefire “does not include Lebanon,” and continues striking Hezbollah. This has become the biggest obstacle to negotiations, prompting Iran to issue a stark warning: “If Israel continues its attacks, Tehran will walk away from the ceasefire agreement.”

A major test for Trump lies in whether Israel will comply with his directives and halt military operations—otherwise, all his diplomatic efforts will be in vain.

In summary, a mutual “ceasefire for maritime access” framework has emerged between the U.S. and Iran. However, Israel’s stance turns the “Lebanon variable” into the greatest uncertainty. If Israel escalates military actions during the talks, the agreement could collapse at any moment.

This report clearly reveals the current situation: Iran is attempting to leverage the Strait of Hormuz as a bargaining chip, converting its battlefield military pressure into political capital at the negotiating table, compelling the U.S. and Israel to accept a comprehensive solution that includes a ceasefire in Lebanon. Yet, the firm stances of the U.S. and especially Israel leave the outcome of these talks highly uncertain.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1861920714566656/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.