Iran Threatens to Abandon Ceasefire Over Hezbollah's Exclusion from Truce Terms

Less than a day after Pakistan brokered what was supposed to be a two-week pause in the most destructive Middle Eastern conflict in decades, the agreement is already in jeopardy — not because of direct hostilities between the United States and Iran, but because of a dispute over four words: "does not include Lebanon."

On April 8, 2026, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran does not extend to Lebanon, where Israel has been waging a parallel war against Hezbollah since March 2 [1]. President Donald Trump confirmed this interpretation, stating that Lebanon was excluded from the truce because of "the Lebanese terror organization" [2]. Iran insists the opposite: that halting the war in Lebanon was central to the deal [3]. The disagreement has placed the entire ceasefire — and with it the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and any path to broader negotiations — on the verge of collapse.

What the Ceasefire Actually Says

The two-week truce, announced the evening of April 7 after nearly six weeks of fighting, was mediated by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who personally facilitated back-channel negotiations between Washington and Tehran [4]. The core terms, as outlined by multiple parties, include:

• An immediate halt to hostilities between the U.S., Israel, and Iran
• The "complete, immediate and safe opening" of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supply transits [5]
• A 15-to-20-day negotiation window, with talks scheduled to begin in Islamabad on Friday, April 10 [6]
• Vice President JD Vance leading the U.S. delegation, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio also participating [7]

The critical ambiguity lies in what "halt to hostilities" covers. Sharif explicitly stated that the U.S., Iran, and Israel "agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon" [8]. Netanyahu's office directly contradicted this, stressing that the two-week ceasefire "does not include Lebanon" [1]. Iran had originally submitted a 10-point ceasefire proposal to Washington via Pakistan that included demands for Israel to halt its strikes on Hezbollah in Lebanon [9].

No publicly released text of the agreement has resolved this contradiction.

The Deadliest Day

Hours after the ceasefire was announced, Israel launched what Lebanese officials described as the largest wave of strikes on Lebanon since the war began. The Israeli military confirmed it struck more than 100 targets across the country [10]. Lebanon's Civil Defence reported at least 254 people killed and 1,165 wounded in a single day — the highest single-day death toll of the 2026 Lebanon war [11].

The strikes hit dense commercial and residential areas in central Beirut without warning [12]. Lebanese House Speaker Nabih Berri called the attacks "a full-fledged war crime" [11]. The United Nations "strongly condemned" the strikes, citing "significant civilian casualties" [11].

Source: Lebanese Health Ministry / Al Jazeera

Data as of Apr 8, 2026CSV

Since the war began on March 2, more than 1,345 Lebanese have been killed and over 4,000 injured [13]. Nearly 1.2 million people — roughly 20% of Lebanon's population — have been displaced from their homes [14]. An additional 180,000 people have fled Lebanon into Syria, a country itself still hosting millions of internally displaced people [15].

Iran's Response: The Strait Closes Again

Tehran's reaction was swift. Within hours of Israel's strikes on Lebanon, Iran re-closed the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping, reversing the ceasefire's central economic concession [16]. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Iran would withdraw from the agreement entirely if "violations of the ceasefire by Israel continue through attacks on Lebanon" [3].

Iran also signaled it would not send a delegation to the planned talks in Islamabad unless Israeli strikes stopped [17]. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards threatened a "regret-inducing response" if the attacks on Lebanon did not immediately cease [17].

The Strait's closure has already had enormous economic consequences. Since Iran first blocked shipping in early March, Brent crude prices surged past $100 per barrel for the first time in four years, peaking at $126 [18]. Gulf states and Iraq have been losing approximately $1.1 billion per day in oil revenue [18]. U.S. gas prices hit $4 per gallon on March 31, a 30% increase driven by the conflict [18]. The Dallas Federal Reserve has described the disruption as the largest to global energy supply since the 1970s oil crisis [19].

Hezbollah's Military Position

Hezbollah entered the 2026 war in a weakened but not incapacitated state. The group had been degraded by Israeli operations throughout 2024 and 2025, losing key political and military leaders, including much of its mid-level command structure [20]. The Alma Research Center assessed in January 2026 that Hezbollah faced a "prolonged leadership crisis" alongside "significant weakening of its mid-level command ranks" [20].

Despite these losses, Hezbollah retained substantial capacity. Estimates put its total fighters at up to 40,000, with its elite Radwan Unit comprising approximately 5,000 members [20]. The group still possessed an estimated 25,000 rockets and missiles ready for deployment [20]. By late March, Reuters reported Hezbollah had launched 5,000 projectiles at Israel since the conflict restarted on March 2 [13].

Hezbollah also spent the months between the November 2024 ceasefire and the March 2026 escalation rearming. Modern Diplomacy reported that the group used the interim period to rebuild supply lines and replenish weapons stocks, particularly through smuggling routes from Syria and Iran [21].

The Israeli military claimed to have killed approximately 700 Hezbollah operatives by early April; sources close to Hezbollah put the figure at around 400 [13]. Between 4,000 and 8,000 Hezbollah fighters remain deployed in Syria [20].

The Money Behind the Proxy

Iran's financial commitment to Hezbollah has been a central point of leverage — and vulnerability — in negotiations. According to U.S. Treasury Department assessments, Iran typically funnels approximately $1 billion per year to Hezbollah, though that amount reportedly doubled to $2 billion in 2024 before falling back to roughly $1 billion in 2025 as sanctions and economic pressure intensified [22]. The average annual budget Iran reserves for all proxy groups is estimated at $1.6 billion [23].

Source: U.S. Treasury / Times of Israel

Data as of Apr 1, 2026CSV

Iran's broader economic picture is bleak. The IMF projected near-zero growth (0.3%) for Iran in 2025, while the World Bank forecast the economy would shrink in both 2025 and 2026, with inflation approaching 60% [24]. Iran's total budget for the Persian year running March 2025 to March 2026 was approximately $58.7 billion, with $15.85 billion — about 27% — allocated to defense [23].

The financial question cuts both ways: abandoning the ceasefire would mean continued Strait of Hormuz disruptions that also devastate Iran's own oil export revenue. But maintaining the ceasefire while Hezbollah absorbs Israeli strikes would undermine Iran's credibility as the group's patron and protector — a strategic loss that may outweigh any economic relief.

The Case for Exclusion

The argument for excluding Hezbollah from the ceasefire rests on legal and strategic grounds that its proponents consider principled rather than merely expedient.

Hezbollah is designated as a terrorist organization in its entirety by the United States, the United Kingdom, and several other nations; the European Union designates its military wing [25]. Including a U.S.- and EU-designated terrorist group as a formal party to an international truce agreement would, in this view, confer a form of diplomatic legitimacy that rewards armed non-state actors for violence.

Trump stated directly that Lebanon was excluded "because of the Lebanese terror organization" [2]. Israel Hayom, an Israeli news outlet, argued that the ceasefire actually leaves Hezbollah in a "strategic trap": the group can either adhere to Iran's ceasefire unilaterally while being excluded from it, or continue fighting independently — but without the diplomatic cover of a broader truce [26].

This position also draws on Lebanon's own government. Following Hezbollah's March 2 strikes on Israel — which launched without state authorization — the Lebanese government publicly condemned the group, stating that "decisions of war and peace are exclusively in the hands of the Lebanese state" and calling on Hezbollah to place its weapons under government control [27]. From this perspective, treating Hezbollah as a sovereign party to international agreements undermines the very Lebanese state sovereignty that many claim to want to protect.

The Case for Inclusion

Iran and its allies argue that excluding Hezbollah makes the ceasefire meaningless — and that the exclusion is itself a form of continued aggression.

Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi's position is that ending the war in Lebanon was a condition of the deal and that Israel's continued strikes constitute a violation of the agreement Tehran signed [3]. Pakistan's Sharif, who brokered the deal, explicitly stated that the agreement covered "all fronts of the war, including Lebanon" [8].

From Tehran's perspective, a ceasefire that allows Israel to continue pounding Hezbollah while Iran stands down is not a truce — it is a mechanism for Israel to degrade Iran's most important regional ally while Iran's hands are tied. The 254 killed on April 8 alone lend weight to this argument [11].

A Hezbollah official told the Associated Press that the group "was giving a chance for mediators to secure a ceasefire in Lebanon" but added: "we have not announced our adherence to the ceasefire since the Israelis are not adhering to it" [28]. Hezbollah paused its attacks on Israel following the announcement, according to unnamed sources close to the group cited by Reuters [29] — a unilateral restraint that Israel did not reciprocate.

Lebanon Caught in the Middle

Lebanon's government finds itself in a familiar and agonizing position: caught between warring external powers with limited ability to shape outcomes.

Lebanese Economy Minister told CNBC that Lebanon "does not know whether it's part of the U.S. and Iran's two-week ceasefire deal," describing "mixed signals" from all parties [30]. President Joseph Aoun stated that the government is working to ensure any regional peace "includes Lebanon," stressing that lasting stability requires "full sovereignty" and that "only state institutions decide on war and peace" [27]. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam called on the international community to "bring an end to these aggressions" [27].

The humanitarian situation is severe. UNHCR has warned that Lebanon faces a "humanitarian catastrophe" [14]. The country already hosts approximately 1.35 million Syrian refugees and 250,000 Palestinian refugees — the highest number of refugees per capita in the world [15]. UNHCR's Lebanon operation is only 14% funded [15]. The new wave of displacement means that aid infrastructure designed for one crisis is now absorbing another.

Source: UNHCR Population Data

Data as of Dec 31, 2025CSV

Syria, already the world's largest source of refugees at 5.5 million, is now receiving Lebanese fleeing in the opposite direction — an inversion of the displacement pattern that defined the previous decade [15].

Historical Precedents

The pattern of proxy forces being excluded from agreements their patrons negotiate has a poor track record. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace documented how Saudi-brokered truces in Yemen broke down in part because local proxy forces were not party to the agreements [31]. When the Yemeni government was excluded from Saudi-Houthi talks in Muscat, analysts warned that "even if they reach an understanding, the war in Yemen may well continue between contending local parties once the Saudis and their allies have disengaged" [31].

The current situation follows a strikingly similar pattern. Iran and the U.S. have reached an understanding at the state level, but the armed group doing much of the actual fighting — Hezbollah — is left outside the truce framework. As the Council on Foreign Relations assessed: "The odds are stacked against a quick and easy negotiation. Any settlement to the war will require one or both sides to make concessions they have long insisted are unacceptable" [29].

What Happens If the Ceasefire Collapses

If Iran follows through on its threat to abandon the agreement, the immediate consequences are clear: the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, oil prices continue to climb toward the $200-per-barrel scenario that U.S. officials and Wall Street analysts have begun to consider [18], and the conflict expands without any diplomatic framework for restraint.

In Lebanon, the human cost would accelerate. The UN has already documented nearly 700,000 displaced in a single week during the March escalation [14]. A resumed full-scale conflict without ceasefire constraints would likely push displacement figures well beyond the current 1.2 million. Lebanon's health system, already strained, would face further strain from mass casualty events like the April 8 strikes.

Neighboring states face spillover risks. Jordan and Iraq, both already hosting significant refugee populations, would likely absorb additional displacement. Cyprus, across the Mediterranean, has been identified in European contingency planning as a potential destination for Lebanese refugees fleeing by sea [15].

Vice President Vance, speaking on April 8, said Israel had "offered to restrain strikes in Lebanon during U.S.-Iran talks" — a formulation that acknowledged the problem without resolving it [32]. Whether that restraint materializes, and whether it satisfies Tehran enough to keep the ceasefire alive, may determine whether the Islamabad talks happen at all.

The Week Ahead

The scheduled start of negotiations in Islamabad on April 10 represents the next inflection point. Iran has conditioned its participation on a halt to Israeli strikes in Lebanon [17]. Israel has signaled willingness to "restrain" but not stop operations [32]. The U.S. maintains that Lebanon is not part of the deal [2].

Pakistan, the mediator, says it is [8].

These contradictions cannot coexist indefinitely. The two-week ceasefire window is already narrowing, and every day of continued strikes in Lebanon makes Iran's threat to abandon the agreement more credible. The question is no longer whether Hezbollah should be included in the ceasefire — it is whether the ceasefire can survive its exclusion.