For the past several days, I’ve been receiving variations of the same question from readers.

Not about a specific Hezbollah attack.

Not about a specific statement from Washington.

Not even about the details of the latest U.S.-Iran negotiations.

The question is much simpler:

How did the pressure suddenly shift from Iran to Israel?

It is a fair question.

Only a short time ago, Iran appeared to be on the defensive. Israel and the United States were closely coordinated. Tehran and its proxies were under pressure. Hezbollah was constrained. The strategic momentum appeared to be moving in one direction.

Today, many Israelis feel as though the entire table has somehow been turned.

Whether that perception is fully accurate or not, it is worth examining why so many people have reached that conclusion.

The first thing that stands out is that the pressure did not only shift onto Israel.

It appears to have shifted back onto America as well.

That may be the most important part of this story.

Before the ceasefire framework, the United States was presenting Iran as the side under pressure. Israel and the United States appeared closely coordinated. Iran was under intense military, diplomatic, and economic pressure. Hezbollah was constrained. Israel had leverage. The pressure campaign was aimed at Tehran.

The United States was also presenting the Strait of Hormuz as a point of American leverage. The message was clear: Iran was surrounded, pressured, weakened, and unable to freely control the regional equation.

Then came the ceasefire framework.

From that moment, the logic of the arena changed.

Before the ceasefire, Israeli operations and American pressure were broadly moving in the same direction: weaken Iran, contain its proxies, restore freedom of navigation, and force Tehran toward concessions.

After the ceasefire, Washington’s priority shifted toward preserving the U.S.-Iran diplomatic track, stabilizing the region, reopening Hormuz, protecting global energy flows, and keeping negotiations alive.

That created a dangerous opening for Iran.

Tehran appears to have understood that once Washington became invested in protecting the agreement, Iran could use both Lebanon and Hormuz as leverage.

That is the deeper strategic reversal.

The pressure did not only shift onto Israel.

It also shifted back onto America.

Hormuz was supposed to be the symbol of American leverage over Iran. Instead, Iran is trying to turn Hormuz back into leverage over America.

Because if Iran can threaten the Strait of Hormuz, pressure global energy markets, and then extract concessions through negotiations, the lesson for Tehran is obvious: Hormuz works.

It may not be a nuclear weapon, but it functions as a strategic weapon. It threatens oil flows, shipping routes, global inflation, Asian markets,........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)