Follow us on social

Report: Iran says it won’t strike Israel if US gets Gaza ceasefire

Report: Iran says it won’t strike Israel if US gets Gaza ceasefire

If confirmed, Tehran’s reported ultimatum gives Biden a chance to prevent escalation to a regional war

Analysis | QiOSK

Iran has told the United States that it will attack Israel directly unless the Biden administration secures a ceasefire in Gaza, according to an Arab diplomatic source who spoke with Jadeh Iran.

The ultimatum follows an Israeli attack on an Iranian diplomatic facility in Damascus last week. The source told Jadeh Iran that a ceasefire could also lead to progress on other aspects of the U.S.-Iran relationship. This comes following mediation by Oman between the U.S. and Iran.

The Iranian government has yet to confirm the news, and the Biden administration has flatly denied it. But if true, this reporting suggests a few important points.

First, it is clear that Iran wants to avoid a direct confrontation with Israel, but it cannot avoid it unless it secures a big win in the region. Tehran may suspect that a ceasefire is already in the offing, allowing it to use that as a pretext to both take credit for ending the war and avoid getting into a shootout with Israel.

But significant questions surround such an approach. We have heard for months that a ceasefire is close. Even if that is what the Iranians believe, setting this red line forces them to act if a ceasefire doesn't materialize. If they don't act on it, they will lose face twice: First, because Israel struck their consulate to begin with and, second, for having failed to move the U.S. even after threatening to strike Israel.

Second, this is very risky, but also rather clever. If the threat compels President Biden to finally put material pressure on Israel in order to avoid a regional war, Iran can take some credit for having saved the people of Gaza. If Biden dismisses the threat, Iran can point to not only a history of restraint vis-a-vis deadly Israeli strikes against Iranian targets in Syria and Lebanon, but also a willingness to hold its fire in return for Biden implementing a binding United Nations Security Council demand for a ceasefire, which also aligns with overwhelming global public opinion.

Third, this suggests that Iran may have figured out how to target Israel in a way that is proportionate and does not provide Israel with grounds for further escalation. Striking Israeli consulates or embassies in the region carries tremendous political risks. Striking the embassy in Baku, for instance, would unravel the very sensitive management of Iranian-Azeri relations in the midst of rising tensions in the Caucasus.

Attacking the embassy in Amman could unravel one of Iran's regional priorities: normalizing relations with Egypt and Jordan. Striking the Israeli embassy in Bahrain could unravel the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement. Striking Abu Dhabi would jeopardize the favorable and functioning modus vivendi Iran has with the UAE. And striking supposedly Israeli targets in Iraqi Kurdistan would be less than proportionate since those targets are not recognized as Israeli diplomatic premises.

Iran's options in the region are limited precisely because it has prioritized improving relations with its Arab neighbors. A more isolated Iran would have less to lose.

This may push Iran toward another option: a strike on Israel proper. This would, of course, be extremely risky, mainly because of the difficulty of calibrating a proportionate response (and impact) that doesn't provide Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the chance to force Biden to go along with further escalation. Tehran’s actions could compel Biden to repeat his disastrous “bearhug”of Israel.

In this scenario, Iran would likely strike with a barrage of ballistic missiles. But, given Tehran’s lack of experience with Israel's air defenses, it would likely have to fire off a large number to ensure that some would evade Israeli interceptions. If too many get through, however, the response would end up being disproportionate and could give Netanyahu an excuse to start a regional war. If none of the missiles get through, Iran will have further undermined its own deterrence.

It remains unclear how Biden will react to this Iranian threat. Of course, the optics of acting under Iranian duress are unacceptable to him. But he could also press Netanyahu for a ceasefire due to Israel's many other unacceptable transgressions and claim that the Iranian dimension had no impact on him.

Alternatively, he could say that he acted to save Israel from a disastrous war that the country’s highly unpopular prime minister was unwisely seeking to drag Israel and the U.S. into. Either way, the long list of strategic reasons why Biden must secure a ceasefire has just grown even longer — and that much more urgent.


Iranian President Rouhani and President-elect Joe Biden (shutterstock)
Analysis | QiOSK
Trade review process could rock the calm in US-Mexico relations
Top image credit: Rawpixel.com and Octavio Hoyos via shutterstock.com

Trade review process could rock the calm in US-Mexico relations

North America

One of the more surprising developments of President Trump’s tenure in office thus far has been the relatively calm U.S. relationship with Mexico, despite expectations that his longstanding views on trade, immigration, and narcotics would lead to a dramatic deterioration.

Of course, Mexico has not escaped the administration’s tariff onslaught and there have been occasional diplomatic setbacks, but the tenor of ties between Trump and President Claudia Sheinbaum has been less fraught than many had anticipated. However, that thaw could be tested soon by economic disagreements as negotiations open on a scheduled review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA).

keep readingShow less
Trump Rubio
Top image credit: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (right) is seen in the Oval Office with US President Donald Trump (left) during a meeting with the King of Jordan, Abdullah II Ibn Al-Hussein in the Oval Office the White House in Washington DC on Tuesday, February 11, 2025. Credit: Aaron Schwartz / Pool/Sipa USA via REUTERS
The US-Colombia drug war alliance is at a breaking point

Trump poised to decertify Colombia

Latin America

It appears increasingly likely that the Trump administration will move to "decertify" Colombia as a partner in its fight against global drug trafficking for the first time in 30 years.

The upcoming determination, due September 15, could trigger cuts to hundreds of millions of dollars in bilateral assistance, visa restrictions on Colombian officials, and sanctions on the country's financial system under current U.S. law. Decertification would strike a major blow to what has been Washington’s top security partner in the region as it struggles with surging coca production and expanding criminal and insurgent violence.

keep readingShow less
Trump Vance Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump meets with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance before a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Monday, August 18, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The roots of Trump's wars on terror trace back to 9/11

Global Crises

The U.S. military recently launched a plainly illegal strike on a small civilian Venezuelan boat that President Trump claims was a successful hit on “narcoterrorists.” Vice President JD Vance responded to allegations that the strike was a war crime by saying, “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” insisting this was the “highest and best use of the military.”

This is only the latest troubling development in the Trump administration’s attempt to repurpose “War on Terror” mechanisms to use the military against cartels and to expedite his much vaunted mass deportation campaign, which he says is necessary because of an "invasion" at the border.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.