The optimism didn’t last long.
Just a day after President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the months-long conflict, markets got a rude reminder that diplomatic breakthroughs rarely come easy. Switzerland’s foreign ministry confirmed that the planned follow-up talks at Bürgenstock would not proceed as scheduled. Vice President JD Vance was also pulled from the trip, with the White House citing unresolved logistical issues.
“The plans for the upcoming technical talks have not been finalized, and the U.S. delegation has been prepared to depart at the first available opportunity,” a spokesperson said. If that sounds like diplomatic boilerplate, it’s because it is. But behind the carefully worded statements lies a stark reality: getting from a handshake to a lasting peace deal is proving far trickier than anyone anticipated.
Let’s be clear about what actually happened here. The interim agreement, signed Thursday, was being portrayed as a major breakthrough. And to be fair, it did accomplish something tangible: the easing of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, where shipping had been disrupted by both Iranian attacks and the U.S. Navy’s blockade of Iran’s ports. That matters, because oil markets do not like uncertainty, and the Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical chokepoints.
But here’s where things get complicated. Analysts at UBS were quick to point out what many in Washington seemed eager to downplay: this agreement represents the beginning, not the end. “While an important breakthrough, this agreement marks really the beginning rather than the end of the process to try to end the war and address Iran’s nuclear capabilities,” they noted in a report. That’s a polite way of saying there’s still a massive mountain to climb.
Adel Abdel Ghafar, a senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, laid out the sticky points with refreshing clarity. Israel’s campaign in Lebanon remains a massive wildcard. Without resolution on that front, there’s a very real scenario where we slide right back into conflict, even though both sides currently say they want to avoid that. It’s the classic diplomatic dilemma: everyone wants peace, but nobody wants to be the one who gave up too much to get it.
Now here’s where the takes get really interesting. David Roche, a strategist at Quantum Strategy, offered a perspective that’s sure to ruffle feathers in both Washington and Tehran. He acknowledged the short-term benefits—easing shipping disruptions, potential relief for inflation-weary economies, perhaps some breathing room for central banks. But then he dropped what amounts to a bomb: “Beyond that, this is a really bad deal.”
Roche’s reasoning is worth considering, even if you disagree with it. He argues the agreement essentially positions Iran stronger in the Gulf while limiting external interference in the country’s domestic affairs. More sobering still, he predicts that Israel will never accept the agreement as currently structured, and he’s quite confident that Iran will never abandon its nuclear ambitions. That latter point, if accurate, raises the uncomfortable question of whether this entire exercise is just delay theater dressed up as diplomacy.
Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration pushed back hard against critics. On Truth Social, Trump called anyone who thinks he hasn’t been tough enough on Iran either “jealous, bad people, or stupid,” pointing to record highs in the stock market and tumbling oil prices. Vance, for his part, emphasized that “The United States isn’t giving up a cent of money to Iran.” It’s classic Trump-era framing: metrics of success calibrated to what matters to his base, even as the substantive critiques from experts like Roche remain largely unanswered.
So where does this leave us? The interim deal has bought something valuable: time, reduced immediate tensions, and a channel for further dialogue. But the cancellation of the Switzerland talks reminds us that diplomacy is not a single event, it’s a process, and processes can stall or collapse at any moment. The market relief we saw earlier this week may prove temporary if the “sticky points” Ghafar mentioned remain unresolved.
What happens next is anyone’s guess. But one thing is certain: whoever ends up writing the history of this negotiations will have plenty of plot twists to work with.
