SRINAGAR: United States President Donald Trump publicly criticised Israel on Sunday after its military launched strikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs, warning that the attack could jeopardise a closely watched agreement aimed at ending the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran.
The Israeli strikes, which targeted the Dahiyeh area of Beirut, came at a critical moment when Washington and Tehran appeared to be nearing the signing of a memorandum of understanding intended to halt hostilities, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and establish a framework for broader negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump said the Israeli attack “should not have happened,” particularly when diplomatic efforts were approaching a breakthrough.
“We are very close to a Deal that will bring peace to the region, including to Lebanon, and all sides should stand down,” Trump wrote.
“There should be no more attacks by Israel anywhere in Lebanon, but there should also be no more attacks by any other party, including Hezbollah, against Israel. This could be the beginning of a long and beautiful peace — let’s not blow it.”
The remarks marked one of Trump’s strongest public criticisms of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since the conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran escalated earlier this year.
Diplomatic Crisis
The Israeli military said the strikes were carried out in response to projectiles allegedly fired from Lebanon towards northern Israel. Lebanese authorities reported that at least three people were killed and 16 others injured in the attack.
Smoke was seen rising over Beirut’s southern suburbs, a traditional stronghold of Hezbollah. Witnesses reported residents fleeing the area amid fears of further escalation.
Trump questioned whether the Israeli response was justified.
“Israel has the right to defend itself against threats, but the attack it was responding to was very small and meaningless, nobody was hurt, injured, or killed, and should not disrupt this important process,” he said.
In subsequent media interviews, Trump expressed visible frustration with Netanyahu over the timing of the operation.
According to reports, Trump told journalists that he had personally confronted the Israeli leader after learning of the strike, describing himself as “very angry” because the attack occurred just hours before a proposed agreement with Iran was expected to be signed.
The strike has intensified concerns that regional actors could derail months of diplomatic efforts aimed at ending a conflict that has destabilised the Middle East and disrupted global energy markets.
Iran Threatens
Iranian officials reacted sharply to the Beirut attack, arguing that it undermined confidence in Washington’s ability to deliver on commitments made during ongoing negotiations.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said the strike raised serious doubts about US credibility.
“The United States either lacks the will to fulfil its commitments or lacks the ability to do so,” Ghalibaf said in a statement posted on social media.
“If you lack the will and ability to fulfil your commitments, speaking of continuing the path is not possible.”
Ebrahim Azizi, chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security Commission, warned that retaliation was imminent.
“A strong response is coming,” Azizi declared.
Iran’s Supreme National Security Council also issued a warning, stating that “the response of the fighters of Islam is imminent.”
“Lebanon is our life and violation of the red lines of the Islamic Republic will not be tolerated,” the council said.
Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, similarly stated that a response to the Beirut strike was “forthcoming.”
The Israeli military acknowledged the possibility of retaliation and announced that it was preparing for potential incoming attacks in the coming hours.
Peace Deal Around
Despite the sharp rhetoric, both Washington and Tehran continued to signal that negotiations remain on track.
Trump told Fox News that he still expected the agreement to be signed within hours, though the Israeli strike had delayed the process.
“It was supposed to be now. Now it is scheduled for a few hours from now,” Trump said.
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth also expressed confidence that diplomacy would prevail.
“From all I know, we are on track. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when,” Hegseth said.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz echoed the assessment, saying Trump remained committed to completing the agreement.
Qatari mediators reportedly travelled to Tehran to facilitate final discussions, while Pakistan has continued to play a central role in brokering negotiations between the two sides.
Iranian officials, however, have indicated that the timeline may be longer than suggested by Washington. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said the signing could still take several days.
A source close to Iran’s negotiating team was quoted by Iranian media as saying that no agreement would be signed within the timeframe publicly announced by Trump, even if Iranian demands were incorporated.
Proposed Agreement
Although the full text of the proposed memorandum has not been made public, officials familiar with the negotiations say it is intended to serve as an initial framework for ending hostilities rather than a comprehensive settlement of all outstanding disputes between Washington and Tehran.
According to diplomats and regional officials involved in the talks, the agreement would provide for an immediate halt to military operations and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway whose disruption has shaken global energy markets. The understanding is also expected to lead to the lifting of the US naval blockade and create a 60-day negotiating window during which the two sides would attempt to resolve more difficult issues, including the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief and access to billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets.
American officials have emphasised that any economic benefits for Iran would be tied to strict compliance with the terms of the agreement. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said there would be no release of funds until Tehran fulfilled its commitments, stressing that the proposed arrangement would be based on verification rather than trust.
The administration has also maintained that Iran would ultimately have to abandon key elements of its uranium enrichment programme and end support for armed groups operating across the region. However, diplomats familiar with the negotiations acknowledge that many of these issues remain unresolved and are expected to be addressed only after an initial ceasefire framework is formally established.
Nuclear Issue Unresolved
One of the most contentious issues remains Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran possesses approximately 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 per cent purity, technically a short step away from weapons-grade material.
President Trump has said the material should eventually be neutralised or destroyed.
Iran, however, maintains that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful and has rejected demands that its enriched uranium stockpile be removed from the country.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi recently stated that any dilution or modification of enriched uranium would have to occur inside Iran.
Analysts note that the proposed memorandum leaves these highly sensitive questions for future negotiations rather than resolving them immediately.
Obama’s Questions
Former US President Barack Obama entered the debate on Sunday, arguing that any new agreement would likely resemble the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which his administration negotiated.
Speaking on ABC News, Obama said it was doubtful that a new deal would represent a significant improvement over the previous agreement.
“It is doubtful that any agreement that arises is going to be significantly different or a significant improvement from the deal that we had in the first place,” Obama said.
He argued that the JCPOA had successfully constrained Iran’s nuclear programme until the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018 during Trump’s first term.
Obama also cautioned against relying solely on military force to solve international disputes.
“You’d think we would have learned that lesson by now,” he said.
Trump has repeatedly defended his decision to abandon the JCPOA, describing it as a flawed arrangement that would eventually have allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
Global Economic Stakes
The conflict has had significant economic consequences, particularly through disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, through which a substantial share of global oil exports passes.
Energy analysts warn that even if a deal is reached, elevated fuel prices could persist for months because global oil inventories have already been depleted.
The conflict has contributed to higher inflation, increased transportation costs and rising fuel prices across several countries.
Industry experts say that reopening the Strait of Hormuz could stabilise markets, but caution that any renewed military escalation could quickly reverse those gains.
Regional Uncertainty
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Tehran remains committed to engagement with neighbouring countries and believes many regional misunderstandings are being resolved through dialogue.
Nevertheless, Sunday’s Beirut strike demonstrated the fragility of the diplomatic process.
Analysts say Israel’s decision to target Beirut at a moment when negotiations appeared close to success reflects broader disagreements between Washington and Tel Aviv regarding the future of Iran, Hezbollah and the regional security architecture.
With Iran threatening retaliation, Israel preparing for possible attacks and negotiators scrambling to salvage a peace agreement, the coming hours are likely to determine whether months of diplomacy can withstand the latest military escalation.
The proposed accord, if ultimately signed, would mark the most significant diplomatic breakthrough in the Middle East since the collapse of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement and could reshape the region’s security landscape after months of war and instability.
