Arab Media Reacts to Israel-Iran Ceasefire With Cautious Relief and Lingering Doubt
Across Arab outlets, relief over the ceasefire is tempered by concerns it excludes the conflict in Gaza and may serve foreign agendas
A fragile calm has settled over the Middle East following the announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, mediated late Monday by the United States and Qatar. But across the Arab world, the media response has been far from uniform. While official statements from Gulf and North African governments have welcomed the truce as a step toward de-escalation, newspapers, commentators, and regional analysts have voiced a more complex set of reactions—part relief, part skepticism, and in many corners, a sense that the ceasefire stops far short of addressing the deeper crises engulfing the Middle East.
From Doha to Cairo, Ramallah to London, the coverage in Arab-language and pan-Arab outlets over the past 24 hours reflects not only differing political alignments, but also diverging concerns about what the ceasefire means—and what it leaves out.
On Tuesday morning, Al Jazeera Arabic published a live update headlined, “World wary as it welcomes Iran–Israel ceasefire,” capturing the tone of cautious optimism that ran through much of the network’s coverage. While acknowledging the significance of halting direct hostilities, the outlet emphasized just how swiftly both sides began trading accusations of truce violations. Iranian officials denied launching any missiles after the ceasefire was declared, even as Israel claimed further attacks.
Ali Hashem, one of Al Jazeera’s senior correspondents, pointed to the central role played by Qatari and American mediation, writing that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ultimately backed down “under intense diplomatic pressure.” But Al Jazeera’s in-house commentators struck a far more reserved note. In a column published late Monday night, journalist Laila Al-Arian warned that the agreement “leaves every fundamental point of conflict unresolved.”
This is a truce between generals, not a treaty between peoples.
The next day, senior analyst Marwan Bishara wrote bluntly: “This is a truce between generals, not a treaty between peoples.”
In Saudi-affiliated media, the focus has largely remained on regional stability and the importance of maintaining Gulf neutrality. Al Arabiya covered the ceasefire under the headline, “Israel, Iran begin truce amid US pressure; Gulf states welcome calm,” echoing statements from the Saudi Foreign Ministry that cautiously endorsed the ceasefire while condemning Iran’s earlier missile strike on a US base in Qatar.
In a Tuesday editorial, Salman Al-Dosary, former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, emphasized the need for restraint. “We must stay clear of this confrontation. The Gulf cannot afford to be the battleground for other nations’ conflicts,” he wrote.
A similar sentiment was echoed in UAE-based Arab News, which warned that “the Gulf’s role is not to be a platform for confrontation,” even as it praised the ceasefire and condemned the targeting of Gulf territory.
While Gulf states celebrated the return to calm, other Arab outlets focused on those who were left out. In a piece published Tuesday by The New Arab, journalist Shatha Hammad highlighted the absence of Palestinians from ceasefire discussions.
“This is not a regional peace—it’s an arrangement between two militaries,” she wrote. “Gaza remains in crisis, Lebanese borders tense, and Yemen’s front lines unchanged.”
In Gaza City, a local medic interviewed anonymously told the outlet: “We hear about ceasefires in Tehran and Tel Aviv, but our war is not over. Our homes are still rubble.”
That frustration was echoed by Ramallah-based columnist Esmat Mansour in Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, who argued that the agreement “leaves Gaza isolated, Lebanon uncertain, and the Yemeni front excluded.” Beirut-based contributors quoted Hezbollah-aligned analysts warning the truce may be part of a larger US-Israeli attempt to fracture the so-called “axis of resistance.”
Among pan-Arab media based outside the region, skepticism ran especially high. London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi published a sharply worded opinion piece by Hussein Majdoubi titled “The Illusion of Israeli Autonomy,” in which he challenged the notion that Israel acted independently in the conflict.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
The idea that Israel acted unilaterally is misleading. The US provided the logistics, the green light, and the geopolitical cover.
“The idea that Israel acted unilaterally is misleading,” he wrote. “The US provided the logistics, the green light, and the geopolitical cover.”
Majdoubi also argued the ceasefire served American electoral interests more than regional peace. “This is not conflict resolution—it’s conflict management, outsourced to familiar allies,” he concluded.
In Cairo, the reaction was more diplomatic. Al Ahram Online published an editorial Tuesday praising the ceasefire as “a step in the right direction,” but Egyptian officials made clear that their focus was now shifting toward Gaza. A Foreign Ministry source, quoted anonymously, noted that “a ceasefire that does not include all active fronts is inherently unstable.”
President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi echoed those concerns in remarks Monday evening, warning that “continued escalation anywhere in the region threatens us all.”
The regional response has also played out in financial terms. Gulf stock markets posted strong gains on Tuesday, reflecting investor confidence that the worst may have passed. Yet the security picture remains more complicated.
The Wall Street Journal confirmed Tuesday that Yemen’s Houthi rebels—key allies of Iran—have rejected the ceasefire, asserting that the agreement does not apply to them and vowing to continue attacks until Gaza’s conflict is resolved. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has remained quiet publicly, but reports from Beirut suggest its leadership is monitoring the situation closely.
As the dust settles from nearly two weeks of missile strikes and diplomatic brinkmanship, the Arab media narrative remains layered and unresolved. While governments across the region have cautiously welcomed the ceasefire, the editorial voices shaping public opinion remain wary. For many, this truce does little to change the deeper equations of conflict, diplomacy, and proxy warfare that define the region today.
Until justice is part of the equation, we’ll be counting the days until the next firestorm.
“Until justice is part of the equation,” wrote Al Jazeera’s Marwan Bishara on Tuesday, “we’ll be counting the days until the next firestorm.”
Media Response to US Strikes
In the days leading up to the ceasefire, Arab media outlets across the region responded to the US strike on Iran with a mix of legal condemnation, strategic concern, and diplomatic analysis.
Lebanon-based broadcaster Al Mayadeen, known for its close coverage of Iran and its allies, framed the US strikes as a violation of international law. In its lead story, the channel reported on Iran’s urgent request to the United Nations Security Council to convene an emergency session, highlighting quotes from Iranian Foreign Ministry officials who described the attack as “a dangerous precedent that breaches sovereignty and global norms.”
Qatar’s Al Jazeera Arabic carried extensive live coverage of Trump’s announcement of the strikes, describing the assault as a “provocative and destabilizing” attack on “peaceful nuclear infrastructure.” In a segment aired early Sunday, Iranian officials were quoted asserting that while the damage to facilities was limited and no radiation leaked, the consequences for regional stability could be “long-term and strategic.”
Meanwhile, Al Arabiya, the Saudi-owned network, led with Trump’s stark warning to Tehran: “Any retaliatory reaction will be met with much greater force.” The outlet also cited Saudi authorities confirming that no radioactive contamination had been detected in Gulf air or water, aiming to reassure the region amid mounting fears of escalation.
These assurances were echoed by Kuwait, Qatar, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which all confirmed that no radiation was released during the strikes—a detail widely circulated in Gulf media to prevent public panic.
In Egypt, local media struck a more analytical tone. Masrawy published a widely circulated column by political analyst Mahmoud al-Toukhi, who outlined six potential scenarios for an Iranian response. These ranged from direct attacks on US military bases and maritime disruption in the Strait of Hormuz to mobilization of proxy forces such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, cyberwarfare, and the targeting of Western nationals in the region.
The lesson of this confrontation is that no nuclear program can be separated from its political ambitions or its regional consequences.
Egypt’s state-run Al-Ahram warned that the strikes risk entrenching militarization in an already fragile geopolitical landscape, particularly along key shipping lanes and border zones. “The lesson of this confrontation,” one editorial read, “is that no nuclear program can be separated from its political ambitions or its regional consequences.”
Jordanian media, notably Al-Rai and Jordan Times, echoed concerns over spillover effects. Analysts in Amman emphasized the delicate balance Jordan must maintain, particularly given its proximity to Israeli military operations and Iranian influence networks in Syria and Iraq. A diplomatic source cited in Al-Rai warned that “continued escalation places the entire Levant at risk.”
Several commentaries also pointed to the risk of renewed unrest in Iraq, where Iranian-backed militias remain active and may seek to retaliate on Tehran’s behalf.
Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds, in its UK edition, published an opinion piece questioning whether the attack signaled a broader strategic repositioning by the US and its regional allies. The article, credited only to the editorial team in London, argued that the real target may not be Iran’s nuclear capacity but rather “its geopolitical entrenchment across the Levant, Gulf, and Red Sea corridors.”
Lebanese analyst Omar Harghous, writing for CNN Arabic, echoed similar views, suggesting the operation had dual motives: tactical containment and strategic messaging to both Iran and other regional players such as China and Russia. “What we’re seeing,” Harghous wrote, “is the formation of a more explicit US-Gulf-Israel alignment aimed at restraining Tehran’s regional project.”
In Gulf-based commentary, including pieces cited by Rayal Youm, the prevailing view was that Iran is unlikely to launch a full-scale military retaliation. Instead, analysts foresee the deployment of asymmetric tools: proxy attacks in Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq, cyberattacks on Gulf and Western infrastructure, and maritime harassment through deniable third-party actors. Notably, a commentary in Al Khaleej emphasized that Iran’s response “will likely be prolonged, indirect, and multifaceted, seeking to avoid direct confrontation while gradually reshaping deterrence.”
Syria TV offered a pan-Arab summary of global reactions, reporting on the strong condemnation voiced by Iraq and cautious silence from some Arab capitals. The outlet noted that while Iran’s direct response has been rhetorical, its allies in the region are being closely monitored for signs of coordinated action.
In CNN Arabic’s broader regional coverage, a former Iranian diplomat warned the strike may provoke a strategic shift in Tehran’s deterrence posture—potentially resulting in retaliatory operations against US and Israeli assets and pushing the conflict into new domains such as cyber and maritime zones.
In Iraq, some newspapers speculated that Iran may pressure Baghdad to demand the withdrawal of remaining US troops—a move that would increase friction with Washington and realign power in favor of Tehran’s proxies.
An editorial in the United Arab Emirates’ Al-Ittihad urged restraint from all sides and called for renewed negotiations, stating, “In this moment of heat, cool-headed diplomacy must prevail. Tehran must respond not with missiles, but with messaging—strategic, clear, and political.”
