JD Vance’s Iran talks could quickly collapse – scuppered by those not in the room

Peace talks between the United States and Iran are beginning in Switzerland, but experts warn that a lot could still go wrong, and there is a serious risk of Iran’s proxies or the US’s allies undermining the deal, forcing war to erupt again. Vice President JD Vance is leading the long-awaited talks from the US side, opposite Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf, in the Qatari-owned Swiss mountain resort of Bürgenstock. Mediators from Qatar and Pakistan are both involved. A 14-point memorandum of understanding (MoU), the first major step to end the conflict, was agreed a week ago, ⁠but hostilities flared again on Friday, shortly after the deal was signed, showing how fragile the peace process is. The MoU called for the Strait of Hormuz to be immediately reopened and a halt ⁠to all fighting, including in Lebanon. It also sets out a plan for 60 days of negotiations on key issues including halting or restraining Iran’s nuclear programme, as well as the lifting of international sanctions on Iran. But on Saturday, Israeli strikes killed at least 20 people in Lebanon. In response, Tehran said it was closing the Strait of Hormuz, the vital waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil was exported before the conflict began on 28 February. Rosa Freedman, a professor of law, conflict and global development at the University of Reading, said there were many factors that could cause a break down in negotiations. The main one is that the discussions are bilateral – between the US and Iran – which means Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah or US ally Israel could “scupper any deal by simply refusing to comply with what they are asked to do”. Iran’s delegation, including minister of foreign affairs Abbas Araghchi, centre, arrive at Bürgenstock (Photo: Urs Flueeler/AFP via Getty) “If the Iranians ask Hezbollah, or the Houthis or Hamas, to do something and they refuse then the peace deal is null and void,” she told The i Paper. “Similarly, that would happen if Israel doesn’t do what America asks.” Freedman added: “If you make negotiations bilateral but you’re relying on many parties to adhere to it then that’s always a big risk factor.” Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Policy and host of the Iran Podcast, wrote on X that “escalation in Lebanon keeps getting in the way” of peace, and the US needs to put more pressure on Israel to stop this. On Saturday, Israel and Hezbollah announced they were re-committed to the ceasefire in Lebanon. Vance tried to put a positive spin on things, saying that “despite the headlines, things are actually getting better there… It’s going to be something we’re just going to have to continuously manage to ensure that Israel and Lebanon are both safe and secure.” However, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel will not withdraw from southern Lebanon, where it occupies around 220 square miles of territory. Earlier talks in May were called off because of renewed Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon has resulted in many civilian casualties (Photo: Mohamed Azakir/Reuters) “The ball is now in Trump’s court,” Mortazavi wrote. “If the goal is a US-Iran deal, pressuring Israel to prevent further escalation in Lebanon is essential to keep diplomacy on track.” Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow for Middle East security at the Royal United Services Institute, said that the greatest danger in the negotiations is not renewed war – although it remains possible – but a “state of permanent diplomatic incompletion”. The lack of substance within the MoU, with issues like Iran’s nuclear programme punted to the current talks, could also hinder a proper resolution. Ozcelik said that the reported text of the peace deal “resolves almost none of the nuclear, ballistic missile, proxy network or regional security questions that made direct military confrontation possible in the first place”. “Instead, nearly every contentious issue has been deferred into a 60-day negotiating window that can, and likely will, be extended,” she told The i Paper. “It creates a politically convenient holding pattern – one that could stretch into the US midterm election cycle, when President Trump’s position on Iran may shift yet again.” Ozcelik said that given all the uncertainty, the danger is that the 60-day window agreed by Donald Trump and Iran keeps being extended indefinitely, “paving the way for a pattern for permanent crisis” in the Middle East and beyond.