Sameera Casmod | sameerac@radioislam.co.za
10 April 2026 | 12:50 CAT
3-minute read

Israel Iran’s demands to include Lebanon in ceasefire can derail peace plans

Confusion reigns over a fragile, Pakistan-mediated, two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran as talks scheduled for Saturday in Islamabad face immediate threats. While Pakistan encourages a peace framework, deep divisions persist over the ceasefire’s scope, with Iran requesting sanctions relief and Israel continuing attacks on Lebanon.

During this week’s Middle East Report, James Dorsey explained that the confusion stems from the 10-point Iranian plan for an end to the war. Trump’s ceasefire announcement apparently signalled that Washington accepted the plan as ‘a basis for negotiation’, not that it had accepted all 10 points, as Iran assumed.

Iran and Pakistan assert that the two-week ceasefire includes Lebanon. However, Israel and the US contend that Lebanon is not covered, enabling Israel to continue targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon. This point of contention is not only posing a threat to peace talks set to take place in Islamabad on Saturday, but also placing strain on Iran’s relations with its non-state ally, Hezbollah.

If Iran allows its premier proxy to be devastated while its own territory is shielded by a ceasefire, it risks appearing as a weak security partner and losing credibility among its regional “axis of resistance”. Conversely, if Iran retaliates for Hezbollah, it risks breaking its own ceasefire and triggering a wider war with the US.

Dorsey observed that another reason for Iran’s insistence on including Lebanon in the ceasefire agreement is to use it as a test to measure how far the US will go to reign Israel in, as well as to guarantee that the two states will no longer attack Iran.

“This is actually a much broader issue for Iran than just Lebanon and its support for Hezbollah,” Dorsey said.

The announcement of the truce has signalled Trump’s defeat, according to analysts, particularly because Washington referenced Iran’s 10-point plan rather than the US 15-point blueprint that Iran immediately rejected.

The discussion turned to the rise of reports of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic currents within the Trump administration and segments of the MAGA support base, particularly those influenced by strands of Christian nationalism.

These trends have emerged across opposing factions within the MAGA movement — those backing the war and those resisting it. On one end, critics of the war have been linked to figures and networks associated with anti-Semitic rhetoric. The recent resignation of former counterterrorism chief Joe Kent, an opponent of the conflict, drew attention to such concerns.

At the same time, elements within the administration have adopted increasingly religious framing of the conflict. Under Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, references to crusader imagery, Christian prayers, and apocalyptic language have featured more prominently, with some officials portraying the war in terms of a broader spiritual struggle. This has reinforced perceptions that sections of the administration and its support base are interpreting the conflict through a lens of Christian nationalism.

Analysts note that these dynamics reflect deeper ideological fractures within the MAGA coalition, where anti-Semitic and Islamophobic narratives have gained traction in different forms. The Iran war has, in effect, amplified these underlying tensions, exposing the extent to which identity, religion, and conspiracy-driven rhetoric are shaping discourse on both sides of the political divide.

Meanwhile, the ceasefire between the United States and Iran remains fragile. At the same time, parallel tensions involving Lebanon persist, with Israel agreeing to negotiations under US pressure but continuing to bomb the country.

Whether a rollback in hostilities — rather than a formal ceasefire — will satisfy Iran remains uncertain, particularly given the broader regional stakes.

Trump’s response to the conflict has also drawn scrutiny. While some critics interpret his rhetoric as erratic, others argue it reflects frustration rather than instability. The Iran confrontation appears to have challenged long-held assumptions within the administration about the extent of US power, with Tehran demonstrating its ability to resist pressure despite sustained military and economic efforts.

Listen to the Middle East Report with James Dorsey on Sabaahul Muslim, presented by Moulana Sulaimaan Ravat.