On Monday, Iran said it would suspend operations against Israel but warned attacks would resume if Israel continued striking Lebanon.
Israel rejected the condition, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accusing Tehran and Hezbollah of trying to create a new equation in which attacks on Israel would no longer carry consequences.
The development has fueled debate over whether the latest ceasefire represents the end of the fighting—or merely the end of its first phase.
A ceasefire tied to Lebanon
For UAE-based analyst Amjad Taha, the answer is straightforward.
"It's a pause rather than a ceasefire or an end of war," he told Iran International.
Taha argues that Tehran's decision to link its ceasefire to Lebanon reveals that the Islamic Republic continues to view regional conflicts through the lens of its proxy network.
"The fact that the Islamic regime right now says it's fighting and its condition in Lebanon ceasefire with its own, it tells us that Iran's, the Islamic Regime still sees Lebanon and other countries as its own proxy and its own extension," he said.
In his view, the current calm risks postponing rather than resolving the underlying conflict.
"If the ceasefire happens right now, we are just postponing another 7th of October-style event, but this time across the Middle East, not just the state of Israel."
Elizabeth Tsurkov, a fellow at the New Lines Institute, sees Iran's Lebanon condition as part of a broader effort to shape the post-war landscape.
"It appears clear that the Iranian regime believes that it won the 40-day war and is therefore trying to establish new rules of the game to project its power and deter Israeli action in Lebanon as well," she said.
Tsurkov also rejected suggestions that apparent tensions between Washington and Jerusalem amount to a coordinated strategy.
"I don't think that this is a matter of bad cop, good cop," she said. "Trump genuinely wants a deal."
Her assessment points to a broader reality emerging from the latest crisis: Lebanon is no longer a separate arena. It has become intertwined with negotiations over Iran, regional deterrence and the future of the ceasefire itself.
A new equation?
The debate over Iran's intentions has exposed sharply different interpretations of the latest escalation. While some see Tehran acting from a position of weakness, others argue it has successfully shaped events since the ceasefire.
Avi Melamed, a former Israeli intelligence official, believes Iran has managed to place itself at the center of multiple interconnected disputes.
"The Iranian regime, as of now, has been quite clearly able to dictate the pace," he said.
Melamed argued that Tehran is attempting to connect "the story of the Hormuz Strait, Iran, the nuclear program and the situation in Lebanon," creating additional pressure points for both Washington and Jerusalem.
As the dispute over Lebanon intensified, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shared an image on X showing the Iranian and Lebanese flags intertwined, reflecting Tehran's position that the two fronts are inseparable.
Still, Melamed cautioned against drawing firm conclusions.
"I think we are at a phase where you could say that, at the same time, the Iranian regime could mark some significant achievements as far as the Iranian regime is concerned," he said, describing the current situation as an "ongoing ping pong game."
Others reject the notion that Iran is acting from a position of confidence.
John Craig, a former US ambassador and senior fellow at the Transatlantic Leadership Network, sees the latest missile attack as an attempt to undermine diplomacy rather than demonstrate strength.
"Iran is desperate to slow/stop any negotiations," Craig said.
He remains skeptical that the current pause will hold.
"Nothing is over," he said. "The IRGC does not want any agreement. Ever."
For military analyst Andrew Fox, the future of the ceasefire may depend less on Tehran and Jerusalem than on developments in Lebanon.
"I think it very much depends on what happens in Lebanon," Fox said.
While describing Israel's latest response as limited compared with the broader war phase, Fox said the underlying conflict remains unresolved.
"It clearly wasn't a full-scale return to combat operations. It was nothing like the scale or intensity of what we saw during the war phase. But it did send a message."
And despite the current lull, he does not believe hostilities have truly ended.
"I don't think it is an end to hostilities," Fox said. "I don't think it is an end to attempts to overthrow the Iranian regime, but I think it will draw a line under this phase."
That may be the clearest point of agreement among analysts. Whether they view Iran as emboldened, opportunistic or desperate, few believe the latest ceasefire has settled the larger struggle.
Trump continues to pursue negotiations with Tehran. Netanyahu has vowed Israel will respond forcefully to future attacks. And Iran has made clear that its restraint is conditional on events beyond its borders.
The missiles may have stopped flying between Iran and Israel. But by tying its ceasefire to Lebanon, Tehran has ensured that the next test of the truce may come not in Tehran or Tel Aviv, but on Israel's northern border.
