US forces did not join Israel’s latest attacks on Iran and Lebanon, the Financial Times reported, citing a US defense official.
The official said the United States did launch interceptors to defend its troops in Israel.
The report described the move as a sign of "Washington’s displeasure at the last strikes on Lebanon and Iran."
A US Army Apache helicopter went down near the Strait of Hormuz on Monday and its two crew members were safely rescued, The New York Times reported, citing two people briefed on the incident.
The cause was not immediately clear, with one of the people saying the helicopter may have been shot down by Iranian fire, suffered mechanical failure or encountered another problem.
The incident came after days of escalating and easing hostilities in the region, as Israel and Iran exchanged strikes before stepping back.
The Trump administration had not disclosed the incident by the time the Times contacted the White House for comment, the report said.
"The AH-64 Apache gunship, which is armed with Hellfire missiles, is one of the most fearsome types of aircraft operating in the region. They patrol the strategic waterway in part to deter small-boat attacks and to shoot down drones," read the report.
The brief exchange of strikes between Iran and Israel revealed a reality that weeks of ceasefire and diplomacy between Tehran and Washington had obscured: neither side appears willing to absorb a blow without responding, even if doing so risks a return to wider war.
In Tehran, the episode triggered a noticeable shift in tone across much of the media landscape. Hardline outlets portrayed Iran's missile strike as proof that its warnings carried weight, while moderates questioned whether diplomacy can survive repeated cycles of escalation.
The shift comes as US President Donald Trump continues to project confidence in negotiations.
After the exchange, Trump publicly urged restraint and sought to keep diplomatic channels alive, while reports emerged that he had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against steps that could further complicate negotiations.
Yet the events of recent days highlighted how narrow the path to a broader agreement remains.
The immediate trigger was Israel's decision to proceed with strikes in Beirut's southern suburbs despite repeated Iranian warnings that attacks on Dahiyeh would be viewed as a violation of the broader post-war understanding that emerged after the US-Iran ceasefire.
Tehran repeatedly linked stability in Lebanon to the durability of any future understanding with Washington and signalled that attacks on Hezbollah strongholds would not go unanswered.
When Iran responded with a missile strike on Israel, state-affiliated outlets portrayed the move less as an escalation than as the enforcement of a red line. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has emerged as one of the central figures in Tehran's diplomacy and wartime decision-making, argued that the episode had created a "new reality" and warned that similar responses could follow future violations.
Israel's retaliation the following day reinforced a different lesson: that it was prepared to respond militarily regardless of diplomatic considerations. The result was a brief but significant exchange that left both sides claiming deterrence while simultaneously exposing the fragility of the ceasefire framework.
The media reaction inside Iran reflected these competing interpretations.
Hardline outlets such as Kayhan, Tasnim and state broadcaster IRIB framed the exchange as evidence that Iran's deterrence strategy remained intact despite military pressure and economic sanctions.
Their coverage emphasised resolve, resistance and the need to resist what they described as attempts to impose new realities on Iran and its allies.
Even more moderate publications supported the response to Israel's actions in Lebanon, although their commentary often focused on the risks of miscalculation and the possibility that another cycle of escalation could rapidly overwhelm diplomatic efforts.
This more anxious mood had already been building in recent weeks. Even before the exchange, moderate outlets increasingly reflected concerns about economic exhaustion, public frustration and the country's ability to absorb further instability.
The latest confrontation appeared to reinforce those fears rather than dispel them.
What was striking was the degree to which most voices in Tehran appeared to share a concern: that the current diplomatic opening is far more fragile than many had assumed.
The exchange lasted less than a day. Yet it altered perceptions in Tehran.
For hardliners, it demonstrated that threats still carry weight and that Iran remains willing to defend what it sees as its core regional interests. For more pragmatic voices, it underscored how quickly months of diplomacy can be placed at risk by events on the ground.
The result is a political atmosphere that is simultaneously more defiant and more anxious than it was a week ago—one in which support for negotiations persists, but confidence in their staying power has visibly weakened.
A senior Iranian lawmaker said negotiations with the United States are being treated as an extension of the battlefield, while warning that a lack of trust continues to threaten the prospects for an agreement.
"We have said many times that we accept negotiation as a continuation of the battlefield. We consider negotiation to be part of the battle," Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesman for parliament's National Security Committee, told CNN.
Rezaei said Tehran would have "no problem" negotiating if it became convinced the United States was acting sincerely and abiding by the rules of diplomacy.
Asked about the main sticking points in the talks, he pointed to Iran's frozen assets abroad and said Tehran did not currently see a serious effort from Washington to reach an implementable framework.
He also stressed the importance of sanctions relief, banking access and Lebanon, saying Tehran would not retreat from supporting what it calls the "resistance front."
"The issue of Lebanon is very, very important to us," he said. "We will by no means back down on the issue of the resistance front, its members, and especially Lebanon."
Vice President JD Vance said the United States is well positioned to achieve President Donald Trump's objectives in negotiations with Iran, expressing confidence that Tehran is making meaningful proposals.
"The Iranians don't want this war to continue. It's not in their best interest, and I think they're coming to the table, putting some real things on the table — we're of course going to verify," Vance told Fox News.
Vance said any agreement would be subject to verification but argued recent negotiations had moved in a positive direction.
"If we get to this deal, it's going to be a home-run win for the American people," he said.
Iran's Arab neighbors are increasingly using shipping methods long associated with Tehran's sanctions-evasion network to keep crude exports flowing amid disruption in the Persian Gulf, according to maritime intelligence firm TankerTrackers.
The firm said it observed a surge in "dark" ship-to-ship oil transfers across the Middle East over the weekend.
"This weekend saw a lot of dark ship-to-ship transfers of oil in the Middle East. It's not Iranian oil. Instead, this is oil coming from Iran's Arab neighbors," TankerTrackers said on X.
The company suggested the covert transfers were helping ease pressure on global oil markets despite continuing tensions in the region.
"Yet another reason why oil isn't $200/barrel right now," it added.
Dark ship-to-ship transfers and tankers operating with tracking systems switched off have long been associated with Iranian oil exports and sanctions evasion.
Shipping across the Persian Gulf has been heavily disrupted since early March, when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for US-Israeli strikes on the country and subsequent attacks on its regional allies.
The disruption deepened after Washington launched a naval blockade of Iranian ports in mid-April, prompting traders and regional producers to seek alternative ways to move crude to global markets.