US-Iran Ceasefire Under Strain: Did Pakistan’s Mediation Trigger Confusion Over Lebanon?

Last Updated:April 09, 2026, 08:20 IST

Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif said Lebanon was part of the deal, but the US and Israel denied it as strikes followed within hours, raising questions over what was actually agreed.

Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif, US President Donald Trump (Photos: Reuters)

The ceasefire between the United States and Iran, announced with Pakistan positioning itself as a key intermediary, is only 24 hours old, yet already facing serious strain. At the centre of the confusion is a fundamental question: was Lebanon ever part of the agreement?

The answer appears to depend on who you ask.

Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly declared that the ceasefire covered all theatres of conflict, including Lebanon. But the United States and Israel have rejected that interpretation outright, even as Israeli strikes on Lebanese territory continued almost immediately after the announcement.

The divergence has now cast a shadow over both the clarity of the agreement and Pakistan’s role in communicating it.

What Did Pakistan Say Was Agreed?

Sharif, who played a central role in relaying the outcome of the talks, said that “Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.”

That statement has since become the basis of Pakistan’s position.

Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, reiterated that version in an interview with CNNsaying the announcement “could not have been more authentic” to what had been agreed between the parties. He maintained that it remained Islamabad’s understanding that Lebanon was included in the ceasefire framework.

Sheikh also warned that ceasefires in the region have historically been fragile, adding that there “have been instances in the past where ceasefires have been disrupted,” suggesting that developments on the ground should not be read as a reflection of the original terms alone.

US And Israel Say Lebanon Was Never Included

Washington and Tel Aviv have presented a sharply different version.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said explicitly that the ceasefire “does not include Lebanon.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reinforced that position, stating that “Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire,” and that this understanding had been conveyed to all involved parties.

While US President Donald Trump has framed the agreement as a diplomatic breakthrough, his administration has not indicated any divergence from this position.

Strikes On Lebanon Immediately Followed The Announcement

Even as the competing claims played out, events on the ground appeared to tilt the narrative.

Within hours of the ceasefire being announced, Israel carried out what it described as its largest military operation against Lebanon in the current phase of the conflict. According to Lebanon’s health ministry, the strikes killed at least 254 people and injured 1,165 others, with several civilian areas hit. The Israeli military acknowledged that the operation targeted multiple locations.

The scale and timing of the assault, almost immediately after the ceasefire declaration, raised fresh questions about whether all sides were operating under the same understanding.

The broader toll of the conflict has also been mounting. Human Rights Activists News Agency, a US-based human rights monitor for Iran reported that at least 1,701 civilians have been killed in US-Israeli attacks on Iran since the war began on February 28.

Iran Aligns With Pakistan’s Version

Iranian officials have publicly backed the interpretation that Lebanon was part of the ceasefire.

Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, on Wednesday accused the United States of violating the agreement, citing three specific issues: continued Israeli attacks on Lebanon, the entry of a drone into Iranian airspace, and the denial of Iran’s right to enrich uranium.

“The deep historical distrust we hold toward the United States stems from its repeated violations of all forms of commitments, a pattern that has regrettably been repeated once again,” Ghalibaf said in a statement on X.

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, also pushed back against the US and Israeli position, sharing Sharif’s ceasefire announcement and insisting that the terms were “clear and explicit.” He added, “The Iran–US Ceasefire terms are clear and explicit: the U.S. must choose between a ceasefire or continued war via Israel. It cannot have both.”

Referring to the Israeli strikes on Lebanon, Araghchi said, “The world sees the massacres in Lebanon. The ball is in the US court, and the world is watching whether it will act on its commitments.”

Ceasefire Already Under Pressure

The fallout has been immediate.

Iran briefly reopened the Strait of Hormuz as part of the ceasefire arrangement, but has since moved to shut it again following the latest developments. Reports indicate that Tehran is now reconsidering its participation in the agreement and weighing a return to direct confrontation.

Global markets have reacted to the uncertainty, with oil prices fluctuating sharply as concerns over supply disruptions resurfaced.

Was This A Miscommunication, Or A Deeper Divide?

The conflicting narratives raise a difficult question: was this simply a breakdown in communication during mediation, or does it reflect a deeper strategic divergence between the parties?

Pakistan’s role in announcing and interpreting the ceasefire has come under scrutiny, particularly given the clarity with which US and Israeli officials have rejected its version. At the same time, Iran’s alignment with Pakistan suggests that at least one side of the negotiation shared that understanding.

There is also a broader geopolitical layer. Israel, which has signalled dissatisfaction with aspects of the ceasefire, appears to be pursuing its own operational objectives, particularly in Lebanon. That raises the possibility that the disagreement is not just about wording, but about competing priorities among allies.

Whether this is a case of miscommunication or a reflection of deeper strategic fault lines, the result is the same: a ceasefire that is already struggling to hold.

Read More