President Donald Trump shifted course on a key aspect of the U.S.-brokered ceasefire with Iran following a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to a Thursday report from CBS News—an apparent change that underscores the fragile and often uncertain nature of diplomacy in the Middle East.
Earlier this week, Trump announced a two-week ceasefire agreement with Iran, presenting it as a step toward de-escalation after intensifying conflict. As part of the deal, the president said Iran had agreed to reopen the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for global trade. Yet despite that announcement, the strait remains largely closed, raising questions about the scope and clarity of the agreement.
At the center of the confusion is a dispute over whether the ceasefire was meant to extend beyond Iran to include Israel’s ongoing military actions in Lebanon. Iranian officials have maintained that the agreement included a pause in Israel’s operations there, while the United States and Israel have rejected that interpretation. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who helped mediate the talks, had publicly stated that Lebanon was part of the arrangement.
According to CBS News, multiple diplomatic sources indicated that Trump had initially been told the ceasefire would apply more broadly across the region, including Lebanon, and had accepted that understanding. Mediators and Iran’s foreign minister reportedly shared that view, and a White House official had also suggested on the day of the announcement that Israel was on board with the terms as brokered by Pakistan.
However, the U.S. position shifted after Trump spoke directly with Netanyahu. Sources familiar with the matter told CBS that the evolving stance reflects the complexity of the negotiations, compounded by what they described as a fragmented political landscape within Iran. The result has been a deal that appears unsettled even in its earliest days, with competing interpretations and uncertain enforcement.
Trump struck a more forceful tone on Thursday, warning Iran that it “better not be” blocking the Strait of Hormuz and urging that, if it is, the situation be corrected immediately. The comments suggest rising frustration as the administration attempts to stabilize a ceasefire that is already showing signs of strain.
The episode comes amid broader reporting about how the administration arrived at its current posture toward Iran. A recent account from The New York Times detailed the role Netanyahu played in shaping Trump’s thinking ahead of the conflict. During a February meeting in the White House Situation Room, Netanyahu reportedly argued that Iran was vulnerable and that a joint U.S.-Israeli effort could bring about regime change.
According to the report, Netanyahu expressed strong confidence in the likelihood of success, presenting the prospect of victory as nearly certain. His influence reflects a long-standing dynamic in U.S.-Israel relations, where discussions over Middle East policy have often been marked by intense debate and differing priorities.
That dynamic has drawn attention before. Following an early meeting with Netanyahu in 1996, former President Bill Clinton reportedly reacted with frustration, questioning the Israeli leader’s approach. In a separate incident captured in a 2001 video, Netanyahu—apparently unaware he was being recorded—remarked in Hebrew that “America is a thing you can move very easily.”
As the ceasefire agreement continues to face challenges, the shifting positions and competing interpretations highlight the difficulty of navigating a conflict where diplomacy, military action, and political influence are tightly intertwined. While the administration has presented the ceasefire as a path forward, the early confusion surrounding its terms serves as a reminder that even efforts to halt fighting can become entangled in the very tensions they are meant to resolve.
