The first attempts by JD Vance’s vice president to negotiate in Switzerland to turn the understanding memorandum agreed with Tehran into a permanent war-ending agreement are already facing serious difficulties.
The memorandum signed by Trump in France last week stops the fighting, reopens the Strait of Hormuz, and offers economic incentives to Iran in exchange for a commitment to never develop nuclear weapons.
However, essential details such as the future of the Iranian nuclear program and its stocks of enriched uranium are to be negotiated over the course of 60 days of high-stakes discussions.
The most significant advantage of the agreement is the cessation of direct hostilities between the US and Iran.
"There is at least a reasonable chance that the ceasefire will hold, simply because it is in the interests of both parties," said Philip Gordon to CNN, a former senior American official for national security, mentioning Tehran's ability to start earning millions of dollars a day from oil exports.
"Iran has an interest in respecting the agreement. And the United States, in turn, has an interest in respecting it, as they do not want a return to war," he said.
Qatar and Pakistan, co-mediators of the negotiations, stated late on Sunday, US time, that the discussions took place in a "positive and constructive atmosphere" and that "encouraging progress" was made. They specified that a roadmap had been agreed upon to reach a final agreement within 60 days.
However, the fragility of this framework quickly becomes evident, as the same strategic pressures and constraints that defined the war now threaten peace.
- Tense negotiations between the US and Iran in Switzerland. Tehran threatens again to close the Strait of Hormuz
- Iran suspends negotiations with the US after Trump's threats. Vance was just talking about a "new page" in relations with Tehran
Iran is trying to take advantage of its new position of strength and has announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Trump responded on Sunday with a new threat of using force and warned that the Iranian negotiating team might not make it home. At the same time, a confrontation between Israel and Iran related to the situation in Lebanon threatened to jeopardize the entire process.
In Washington, there is an unusually high level of concern, shared by both parties, that the president has made too many concessions to secure the agreement, as well as doubts about its sustainability, despite the general satisfaction that the fighting could finally end.
These tensions contradict Trump's claims that he has achieved a historic victory and suggest that the global economic benefits resulting from the end of the war are uncertain. Tehran demonstrates that it will negotiate very toughly with Washington. More broadly, the situation brings back into focus what Trump's critics consider a strategic error: starting a war that led to a period of complex and possibly long-lasting consequences.
Nevertheless, the memorandum remains the best hope for avoiding a return to conflict, which could cost even more Iranian and American lives, could once again draw Gulf states into confrontation, and could once again destabilize the global economy, raising prices for consumers already affected by the high cost of living - an argument invoked by Trump himself to justify the agreement.
Despite the strategic failures highlighted by Trump's Democratic critics, there continues to be a strong national interest in the US for the agreement to hold and for the administration to achieve the best possible outcome.
A weekend in which all parties tested a fragile agreement
The tense weekend following Trump's return from Europe highlighted the strategic challenges ahead.
The President remains deeply frustrated with Iran. He repeats the type of threats that failed to make Tehran respect the memorandum during the war. On Sunday, for example, he threatened to take control of the Strait of Hormuz if Iran does not reopen it. The huge costs of such an operation have prevented the US from attempting this even during the war. For this reason, Iran may question the credibility of his warning.
Iran also understands that Trump is eager to reap economic and political benefits from the agreement ahead of the midterm legislative elections scheduled for November.
"They never think that if their threats had really worked, they wouldn't be in such a desperate situation today?" wrote Iran's chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, on Sunday on the X platform.
This strategy suggests that Iran has no intention of quickly offering the American president an agreement that would allow him to claim a political victory.
The Iranian regime seems to want and demonstrate that its survival has created a new strategic reality in the Persian Gulf. The statement about closing the Strait of Hormuz - contrary to the memorandum's provisions - was intended to force the Trump administration to impose a ceasefire in Lebanon after Israeli strikes against Hezbollah.
Iran is thus testing Trump's ability to control Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and showing that it intends to maintain its regional influence through allied groups. Although Trump and Vance have strongly criticized Israel, the president has issued his own warning to Tehran, threatening to hit Iran "very hard" if it does not limit Hezbollah's activities.
History shows that Israel often continues its military operations until and even after ceasefire deadlines to demonstrate that it will not compromise on its essential national security interests. After the strikes in Lebanon on Friday and Saturday, a fragile ceasefire was established with the start of negotiations in Switzerland.
Netanyahu is in a delicate position, caught between the pressure from Trump and the opposition of many Israelis to the agreement reached by the American president. In addition, Iran's insistence on a complete cessation of fighting in Lebanon means that a country often drawn into the conflicts of others could once again jeopardize hopes for regional peace.
Despite the bleak prospects, the Trump administration is banking on a bold strategy, reflected in Vance's statements to the Iranian people before the negotiations:
"If your leaders are willing to give up the role of a regional instability factor and long-term nuclear ambitions, then the United States is willing to fundamentally transform our relationship with this country."
However, history suggests that such an objective may be unrealistic. For nearly 50 years, Iran's revolutionary leaders have defined their regime through opposition to America. There is little evidence that a new generation of pragmatists willing to accept an economic opening that could weaken the regime's repressive control has emerged in Tehran.
Trump faces bipartisan skepticism over the terms of the agreement
The consequences of the memorandum are causing political turmoil in Washington.
It has heightened tensions between the president and Republican senators, already dissatisfied with the dispute over the appointment of Bill Pulte as interim director of national intelligence services and Trump's attempts to force the Republican majority to adopt extensive changes to electoral legislation before the elections.
There is also profound skepticism about the terms of the agreement - including the suspension of sanctions on Iranian energy and pharmaceutical exports during the 60-day negotiations and the creation of a $300 billion fund to revitalize Iran's economy, to be funded by regional powers, according to the US.
Trump's critics argue that he has "paid" practically for the reopening of the strait and has squandered American influence ahead of sensitive negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program.
However, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump known for his strong positions in foreign policy, defended the president's approach, even though he is not convinced it will work.
"If there is no diplomatic path through this memorandum, then the alternative is war or another form of constraint. Let's try this option. Let's try a diplomatic solution," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation" show. However, he added: "I think it will fail."
Democratic Senator Cory Booker described the agreement with Iran as "a catastrophic failure caused by Trump" and "a total surrender." On NBC's "Meet the Press" show, he warned that "Iran gets all the benefits, billions and billions of dollars, while America continues to bear the costs of the $100 billion war, and the costs for American citizens are skyrocketing."
These tense days show that Trump's vision of a nuclear-free Iran and a transformed Middle East remains, at least for the moment, a distant aspiration. They suggest that the strategic impasse created by the war is now compounded by a similar obstacle on the path to peace.
If the war failed to achieve US objectives, the difficult start of the peace process shows that building peace could be just as futile.