Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and President Donald Trump discussed progress in US-Iran consultations that led to understandings proposed within a negotiating track, the Qatari Emiri Diwan said.
Trump told the emir that efforts were continuing to complete final procedures before announcing arrangements to sign an agreement, the Diwan said.
President Donald Trump’s social media post suggesting an imminent agreement with Tehran surprised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was in a security discussion about Iran at the time, CNN reported, citing an Israeli source.
Israel was not aware of any impending agreement with Iran or any approval of an agreement, the source told CNN, appearing to contradict Trump’s claim on Truth Social.
Netanyahu had convened a limited security discussion on Thursday night with top security officials and some ministers after two consecutive nights of US strikes on Iran and Trump’s threat of more attacks, the report said.
The Middle East may be entering a period in which ceasefires no longer end wars but manage them, as the warring sides trade limited strikes below the threshold of an all-out war, experts told Iran International’s townhall held in Washington DC.
The discussion, hosted by Iran International’s Negar Mojtahedi, centered on whether the latest ceasefire in Lebanon marks the end of a war or the beginning of a more dangerous phase: a regional conflict in which Iran increasingly treats attacks on its proxies as attacks on itself.
A ceasefire that does not end the war
Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, said Iran’s latest posture toward Lebanon should be viewed against the long arc of the Islamic Republic’s presence there.
He noted that it has been more than four decades since the first official officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrived in Lebanon, making the country a central pillar of Tehran’s regional project.
For years, Vatanka said, Iran used Lebanon and Hezbollah to project power, particularly against Israel. But recent events suggest Tehran may now be entering “a new chapter,” one in which the distinction between Iran and its proxy network becomes more blurred.
“An attack on Hezbollah, an attack on the Houthis, an attack on the Hashd al-Shaabi is going to, from now onward, be considered an attack on Iran,” Vatanka said, describing what Iranian officials have presented as a new defense doctrine.
He cautioned that if taken literally, such a doctrine could mean an open-ended regional confrontation. Any strike on Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, or Iran-backed militias in Iraq could invite a direct Iranian response, turning local battlefields into triggers for wider escalation.
Vatanka said Tehran appears to be defending its proxy strategy at a moment when many analysts had expected the opposite. After October 7 and the heavy blows inflicted on Iran-backed groups, some believed the Islamic Republic might conclude that its “forward defense” strategy had failed. Instead, he said, influential voices in Tehran appear to be arguing that this is precisely the moment to double down.
Iran’s umbrella over Lebanon
Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute, said Lebanon is now caught between two competing visions of its future.
“There are two competing realities in Lebanon,” Satloff said. “One reality is Iran asserting its umbrella to control Lebanon... The other reality is Lebanon and Israel negotiating a security agreement, potentially a peace agreement.”
That contrast may define the next phase of the conflict. In one scenario, Iran tries to reassert control through Hezbollah and make clear that Lebanon remains part of its regional security architecture. In the other, Lebanon’s government attempts to reclaim sovereignty and pursue security arrangements with Israel, with US backing.
Satloff said Iran’s attempt to claim Lebanon under its umbrella has not succeeded, but neither has the effort to fully disarm Hezbollah. He described the challenge as a contest between Iran’s regional power projection and a fragile Lebanese state trying to implement commitments it has made before but repeatedly failed to fulfill.
He also argued that Iran’s latest direct attack on Israel showed weakness rather than strength. Compared with previous barrages involving hundreds of missiles, he said, the latest attack was limited and intercepted, exposing the degradation of Iran’s capabilities rather than demonstrating strategic confidence.
Hezbollah down, but not out
Ambassador David Hale, a distinguished diplomatic fellow at the Middle East Institute and former US ambassador to Lebanon, Jordan and Pakistan, said one of the most striking changes is Hezbollah’s current vulnerability.
“Hezbollah is so degraded, it's down but not out, but it's so degraded that it can't defend itself,” Hale said. “Iran is coming in to defend its proxy. It's always the other way around.”
For Hale, that reversal is significant. Hezbollah was long understood as one of Iran’s most powerful deterrent tools, a force capable of threatening Israel and shaping Lebanese politics on Tehran’s behalf. Now, he said, Iran’s direct intervention suggests Hezbollah can no longer perform its traditional role with the same effectiveness.
Still, Hale warned against assuming that Lebanon can resolve the Hezbollah question through military action alone. He said sovereignty is not “a light switch,” and disarming Hezbollah will require a political process as well as military pressure.
Lebanon’s state institutions, he said, remain weak by design, reflecting the country’s sectarian balance. Although President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam have shown willingness to engage in a new direction, Hale said the Lebanese Armed Forces are unlikely to simply move into Hezbollah-controlled areas “guns blazing.” A durable solution would require humanitarian support, political alternatives for Lebanon’s Shiite community, and a credible state presence in the south.
The US as the decisive variable
The panelists agreed that whether this becomes the region’s new normal depends heavily on Washington.
Satloff said Iran’s attacks across the region, including against Kuwait, Bahrain and a US base in Jordan, should remind Arab states “who the real aggressor is” and create an opportunity for President Donald Trump to rally regional partners against Tehran. But he warned that the moment could be lost if Washington quickly returns to seeking any deal it can get.
Hale said the United States should rely less on public rhetoric and more on sustained pressure. He argued that Tehran understands violence and intimidation, and that Washington must be prepared to respond with persistent military, economic and political pressure.
But the panel also raised doubts about the coherence of US strategy. Vatanka said he was struck by how much planning appeared to have gone into the military side of the confrontation, and how little into the political endgame. The stated US goal, he noted, has shifted from encouraging Iranians to challenge the regime to narrower objectives such as the nuclear file, trade and the Strait of Hormuz.
That uncertainty may be what makes the current moment so dangerous. A ceasefire may reduce the intensity of the fighting, but if Iran continues to defend its proxies as extensions of itself, Israel continues to strike perceived threats, Arab states are drawn into the line of fire, and Washington alternates between pressure and dealmaking, the region could remain trapped in a cycle of calibrated escalation.
Audience questions turn to Washington’s endgame
The audience Q&A shifted the discussion from battlefield dynamics to whether Washington has a political strategy to match its military pressure on Tehran.
Asked about regime change, Hale warned against raising expectations among Iranians without being prepared to follow through.
Satloff said Washington should instead invest in tools that prepare the ground for change, including stronger broadcasting to Iranians, internet access, and visa or asylum pathways for dissidents.
Vatanka said the deeper problem remains the lack of a coherent US strategy toward Iran.
The exchange underscored a central point of the townhall: without a political endgame, military pressure alone may leave the region trapped in a cycle of ceasefires, strikes and retaliation.
For now, the experts suggested, the Middle East is not clearly moving from war to peace. It may instead be settling into a volatile gray zone: a ceasefire era in which the guns never fully fall silent.
Key gaps in negotiations between Iran and the United States were resolved during talks between Iranian officials and Qatari mediators in Tehran on Wednesday, Axios reported, citing three sources briefed on the talks.
The sources said the gaps involved the mechanism for releasing Iran’s frozen assets, arrangements for reopening the Strait of Hormuz during a 60-day ceasefire period, and how negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program would be conducted during that period.
Iranian officials told several countries on Thursday that the Tehran talks had produced an agreement in principle, but Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei still needed to give final approval, the sources said, according to the report.
The Trump administration plans to deport a number of Iranians and other migrants to the Central African Republic under a third-country deportation deal, Reuters reported, citing two lawyers and an official briefed on the matter.
The Iranians include two women who could face torture and persecution if returned to Iran, their lawyer told Reuters, saying one was a Christian convert and the other a pro-democracy activist.
The first flight under the deal was expected to carry about 20 people, including Iranians, Syrians and Afghans, and could leave as early as Thursday, the lawyers said.
The report said hundreds of migrants could ultimately be deported to the Central African Republic under the deal.
President Donald Trump said he canceled scheduled US strikes against Iran planned for Thursday evening.
“Based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved, I have, as President of the United States of America, cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.
“Discussions and final points have been, in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved, including the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and others,” he added.
“The Naval Blockade will remain in full force and effect until this Transaction is finalized — Time and place of the signing to be announced shortly,” Trump said.