Israel and Iran trade long-range missile strikes, jeopardizing a two-month ceasefire

Israel and Iran carried out an exchange of long-range missile strikes on June 8, in what multiple broadcasters described as the first such back-and-forth since a ceasefire took effect roughly two months earlier. The firing renewed fears in the Middle East that a shaky halt in hostilities could collapse into wider combat.

PBS NewsHour reported that both governments appeared to have agreed to stop further attacks after the initial salvos, but the incident still raised concerns about whether the ceasefire, already described as fragile, could hold. The reported exchange occurred as mediators sought to complete talks on ending the broader war linked to Iran and Israel’s regional conflict.

CBS News reported that the renewed exchanges happened around the war’s 100th day and came after earlier strikes in the cycle. CBS said Israel had launched airstrikes on Sunday on the southern suburbs of Beirut, prompting an Iranian response, and then leading into the June 8 missile exchange.

CBS also reported that the new attacks took place hours after President Donald Trump reportedly urged Israel not to retaliate against Tehran’s missiles. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei was quoted by CBS arguing that the actions of Iran-backed parties and Israel “cannot be separated” from U.S. policy, and that coordination between the United States and Israel would be implied by Israel’s actions.

Several reports characterized the exchange as posing immediate challenges for ceasefire enforcement and diplomacy. NPR described the missile exchange as a major escalation during the uneasy period that had followed the ceasefire, while DW reported it as the most serious confrontation since the truce was agreed in April.

CNBC reported that Trump said negotiations were continuing despite the strikes, framing the incident as a test of the still-uncertain diplomatic process. A separate report also cited calls for restraint from European officials, reflecting the broader international scrutiny surrounding the truce.

In the hours after the exchange, the central question for diplomats was whether both sides would keep to a stop in attacks long enough to allow talks to proceed. With the ceasefire already under strain, negotiators faced pressure to clarify intentions, reduce retaliatory triggers, and maintain communication channels to prevent a new escalation spiral.