On April 8, 2026, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Donald Trump would continue discussing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the possibility of including Lebanon in a ceasefire deal connected to the Iran war.
The supplied AFP via Aaj News report makes clear that the idea was still under discussion rather than settled policy. Leavitt said the subject would continue to be raised between Trump, Netanyahu and other parties involved, which suggests the diplomatic channel was open but unresolved.
The report also states that the U.S.-Iran truce did not include Lebanon, which had been drawn into the conflict after Hezbollah launched attacks on Israel. That distinction is crucial. It means any Lebanese component would have required separate negotiation rather than being automatically folded into the existing ceasefire.
Leavitt’s comments, as reported, indicate that Washington was trying to keep options open without overpromising. In practice, that means the administration was acknowledging the limits of the current truce while leaving room for a broader settlement if the talks progressed.
The excerpt also includes Leavitt’s demand that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz immediately, after reports that the waterway had been shut despite the ceasefire. She called any closure “completely unacceptable” and said the president expected it to be reopened quickly and safely. That language shows the White House was treating the ceasefire as fragile and potentially vulnerable to wider regional disruption.
The supplied evidence does not say whether Israel had agreed to a Lebanon amendment, whether Hezbollah was part of the talks, or what precise mechanism was being discussed. What it does show is a U.S. effort to keep the Lebanese question alive while managing a separate ceasefire with Iran.
In practical terms, that is a reminder that the conflict was being negotiated in layers. The truce with Iran, the war in Lebanon and the status of Hezbollah were all interconnected, but not solved by a single agreement. Leavitt’s remarks suggest the White House was still trying to shape the next layer of the deal.
The report also underscores the diplomatic uncertainty around the wider crisis. Even as a ceasefire existed on paper, major questions remained about its scope, its durability and whether it could be expanded without collapsing under the weight of unresolved regional grievances.
Leavitt’s comments also suggest that the administration was trying to manage allied expectations carefully. By saying the issue would continue to be discussed, she left room for later movement without claiming a position that had not yet been negotiated.
The Strait of Hormuz reference adds another layer to the story. By tying the ceasefire question to the waterway, the White House was linking a diplomatic process to the practical flows of global trade and energy security. That makes the Lebanon discussion part of a much wider effort to stabilize the region.
The supplied evidence is enough to support the core fact, but not enough to settle every tactical or diplomatic question around it. That is why the story stays with what can be verified: the statement itself, the setting, and the broader implication for the conflict.
