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
Trump and Keith Kellogg
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump and Keith Kellogg (now Trump's Ukraine envoy) in 2017. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Trump's silence on loss of Ukraine lithium territory speaks volumes

Europe

Last week, Russian military forces seized a valuable lithium field in the Donetsk region of Ukraine, the latest success of Moscow’s grinding summer offensive.

The lithium deposit in question is considered rather small by industry analysts, but is said to be a desirable prize nonetheless due to the concentration and high-quality of its ore. In other words, it is just the kind of asset that the Trump administration seemed eager to exploit when it signed its much heralded minerals agreement with Ukraine earlier this year.

keep readingShow less
Is the US now funding the bloodbath at Gaza aid centers?
Top photo credit: Palestinians walk to collect aid supplies from the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip, May 29, 2025. REUTERS/Hatem Khaled/File Photo

Is the US now funding the bloodbath at Gaza aid centers?

Middle East

Many human rights organizations say it should shut down. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have killed hundreds of Palestinians at or around its aid centers. And yet, the U.S. has committed no less than $30 million toward the controversial, Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

As famine-like conditions grip Gaza, the GHF says it has given over 50 million meals to Palestinians at its four aid centers in central and southern Gaza Strip since late May. These centers are operated by armed U.S. private contractors, and secured by IDF forces present at or near them.

keep readingShow less
mali
Heads of state of Mali, Assimi Goita, Niger, General Abdourahamane Tiani and Burkina Faso, Captain Ibrahim Traore, pose for photographs during the first ordinary summit of heads of state and governments of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) in Niamey, Niger July 6, 2024. REUTERS/Mahamadou Hamidou//File Photo

Post-coup juntas across the Sahel face serious crises

Africa

In Mali, General Assimi Goïta, who took power in a 2020 coup, now plans to remain in power through at least the end of this decade, as do his counterparts in neighboring Burkina Faso and Niger. As long-ruling juntas consolidate power in national capitals, much of the Sahelian terrain remains out of government control.

Recent attacks on government security forces in Djibo (Burkina Faso), Timbuktu (Mali), and Eknewane (Niger) have all underscored the depth of the insecurity. The Sahelian governments face a powerful threat from jihadist forces in two organizations, Jama‘at Nusrat al-Islam wa-l-Muslimin (the Group for Supporting Islam and Muslims, JNIM, which is part of al-Qaida) and the Islamic State Sahel Province (ISSP). The Sahelian governments also face conventional rebel challengers and interact, sometimes in cooperation and sometimes in tension, with various vigilantes and community-based armed groups.

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.