April 24, 2026
This column appeared in Times of Israel.
President Trump’s decision Tuesday to extend the U.S.–Iran ceasefire reinforces a central argument I have made previously: both sides have now moved decisively into the realm of coercive diplomacy, not full-scale war.
The extension—announced as the ceasefire was set to expire—comes alongside continued U.S. military pressure, including the ongoing U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and sustained force posture in the region. At the same time, Washington is holding open a diplomatic channel, awaiting a more unified Iranian position and signaling that negotiations will continue.
This is not a full de-escalation. The military conflict has not disappeared, but is instead being tacitly bound.
It is also important to be clear about what this conflict is fundamentally about. The crisis did not begin in the Strait of Hormuz. It stems from Iran’s advancing nuclear program, its regional aggression, and its sustained use of terror proxies—including Hezbollah and Hamas—to attack Israel and destabilize its neighbors. The maritime domain may now be the focal point of pressure, but it is not the underlying cause of the confrontation.
Why Avoiding Full-Scale War Still Makes Strategic Sense
With that said, a return to large-scale conflict remains deeply unattractive for the United States.
Militarily, escalation risks a broader regional war with potentially diminishing returns—drawing in Hezbollah, disrupting global energy markets through the Strait of Hormuz, and stretching U.S. assets across multiple theaters. Economically, the shock to oil markets is already evident even under current conditions. Politically, a prolonged war would be difficult to sustain domestically and internationally.
The extension of the ceasefire reflects that reality. However, a ceasefire alone is not a strategy. If anything, it creates a window in which pressure must be applied more intelligently and more effectively.
In coordination with international partners, the U.S. can undertake specific steps to maintain pressure on Tehran in the midst of the ongoing ceasefire. If used effectively, these measures can preserve leverage while avoiding the costs and uncertainties of a wider war.
1. Keep Maritime Pressure in the Strait as Leverage
This maritime focus is not only tactical, but also strategic. While the Strait of Hormuz has become Iran’s most consequential point of leverage, it also remains a source of vulnerability for Iran. Pressure there directly affects Iran’s economic lifelines and its ability to project coercion outward.
To date, escalation has largely been contained to the maritime domain, centered on the Strait. Naval interdictions, seizures, and limited exchanges have continued, even as both Washington and Tehran have avoided resuming a broader air campaign. That restraint is not accidental. It reflects a mutual, if unspoken, understanding that a return to full-spectrum warfare would carry far greater costs and far less predictable outcomes.
In that sense, maintaining—and, where possible, tightening—that pressure should be a central element of U.S. strategy. It is one of the few tools that imposes immediate, tangible costs on Iran without triggering the kind of escalation that a renewed air campaign would almost certainly invite.
At the same time, the current dynamic, particularly Iran’s reported efforts to condition or selectively control transit, underscores the stakes. Freedom of navigation cannot become negotiable. Over the long term, any arrangement that allows Iran to arbitrate access through the Strait would be unacceptable for the international community.
2. Delink Lebanon, and Refocus the Approach to Hezbollah
It is also critical to recognize that the Lebanon theater is operating on a different track. The Israel–Hezbollah conflict was not reportedly covered by the U.S.–Iran ceasefire framework, and it should not be treated as such. Conflating the two risks giving Iran additional leverage while complicating efforts to stabilize either front.
At the same time, this creates a difficult strategic dilemma for Israel.
On one hand, Israeli citizens have faced sustained rocket and missile fire from Hezbollah, making inaction untenable. On the other, the way in which Israel responds carries significant implications—not only for Hezbollah’s capabilities, but for the stability of the Lebanese state and the broader regional environment.
A campaign that imposes widespread destruction risks weakening Lebanese institutions, exacerbating humanitarian pressures, and potentially strengthening Hezbollah’s narrative domestically and regionally. Yet insufficient pressure risks leaving Hezbollah’s military infrastructure—and its role as an Iranian proxy—intact.
There are no easy answers to this dilemma. But it underscores a broader point: that the Lebanon front, while connected to Iran, must be approached on its own terms. How this balance is managed will shape not only Israel’s security in the near term, but the longer-term prospects for a more stable and sovereign Lebanon.
3. Ramp Up Economic, Diplomatic and Information Warfare on the Iranian Regime
If the objective is to move Iran toward a more moderate position, the U.S. and its partners will also need to expand the toolkit beyond military pressure.
First, economic pressure must become more coordinated with allies and partners. The naval blockade is already imposing real costs, but its impact will be limited without broader international alignment. Targeting shipping insurance, port access, and financial channels—particularly with European and Asian partners—can amplify pressure on Iran’s economy in ways that unilateral measures cannot.
Second, diplomatic isolation should be sharpened, not relaxed. Iran’s leadership remains sensitive to legitimacy and international standing, particularly as it seeks sanctions relief and economic normalization. Building a wider coalition—including Gulf states—can reinforce that Iran’s current posture carries long-term political costs.
Third, information and internal pressure against the Regime should be elevated as a core line of effort. The greatest hope for real change away from this Iranian regime lies with the Iranian people. Efforts to support the Iranian people in their struggle for freedom, as well as to exploit divisions between Iranian political, military, and economic centers of power—including those tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—should be continued to the greatest degree possible. Efforts to increase transparency around the economic toll of the crisis, re-establish digital network connectivity for the Iranian population, and expose the costs of continued confrontation can all weaken the regime’s internal base of support, and strengthen the Iranian opposition, over time.
The Bottom Line
The extension of the ceasefire is a prudent call, however it is best understood as a repositioning, not a resolution. By tacitly limiting escalation to the maritime domain and avoiding a renewed air campaign, both the U.S. and Tehran are signaling a preference to contain the conflict while continuing to test each other’s thresholds. The challenge now is to generate leverage to compel Iran to address what brought the parties to this point in the first place: Iran’s advancing nuclear program and its sustained pattern of regional aggression and internal repression.
That means using sustained pressure—military, diplomatic, economic and informational —to force movement on the underlying drivers of the conflict: Iran’s advancing nuclear program, its regional aggression, and its sustained support for proxy terror forces.
If this approach succeeds, this period can be remembered as one in which pressure was applied in a more disciplined and effective way that constrained escalation while beginning to shift Iran’s strategic calculus.
If it fails, the likely outcome is not a stable status quo, but a return to conflict under conditions that are potentially less favorable, and more dangerous, than before.
