Reports from Tel Aviv and Washington indicate that the United States and Israel are undertaking the most intensive preparations for renewed military strikes on Iran since a ceasefire was brokered just over a month ago. President Donald Trump has issued a cryptic warning of a “calm before the storm”, and a recently released AI-generated image of his own making has been widely interpreted in European capitals as a deliberate signal that hostilities may soon resume. The Israeli military has been placed on high readiness, according to government sources, with all eyes on a White House decision that has yet to materialise.

At the Pentagon, planning is now under way to restart what was paused under the ceasefire as Operation Epic Fury, albeit under a different operational name. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has stated that the campaign could resume within days. Viewed from Tel Aviv, the urgency is palpable: Israeli officials believe that Trump has concluded that Tehran is not prepared to accept his conditions for ending the war, a conclusion that makes a renewed military push all but inevitable unless a diplomatic breakthrough occurs.

Diplomatic channels, however, remain open, if fragile. Pakistan’s Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi made a rare visit to Tehran to discuss the possibility of resuming negotiations, though Islamabad has publicly downplayed any mediation role between Washington and the Iranian leadership. Meanwhile, Trump returned to Washington from China this week facing mounting pressure from his own aides, who have prepared options for fresh strikes should diplomacy fail. The New York Times reports that US, Israeli and regional officials are exploring a compromise that would see Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz, allowing Trump to claim a diplomatic victory — but Tehran has so far shown little appetite for such a deal.

The coming days will reveal whether the President is willing to authorise a resumption of hostilities that risks drawing in the broader region. Analysts in London caution that any new campaign would likely be more destructive than the first phase of operations, given the accumulated intelligence and readiness on both sides. The balance between a face-saving diplomatic exit and a return to open conflict remains precarious, and the decision rests largely with one man. What is clear is that the ceasefire, already fraying, may soon become a footnote in a longer and more costly confrontation.