The trust crisis at the heart of the US Iran peace deal

The deal was signed. The venue was ready. The Swiss had prepared the Burgenstock resort overlooking Lake Lucerne. And then, on what was supposed to be the first day of peace talks between the United States and Iran, nobody showed up.

On Friday, June 19, Switzerland’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that planned talks involving the US, Iran, Qatar, and Pakistan had been postponed, with no new date given. US Vice President JD Vance, who was supposed to lead the American delegation, cancelled his trip. Iran never confirmed its delegation would travel at all.

The White House called it a logistics issue. “The logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable,” a spokesperson said Thursday night.

That explanation is too simple. The real reasons may be more complicated and worrying for anyone hoping this peace deal will hold:

Fighting in Lebanon Didn’t Stop

The most immediate reason Iran might have pulled back is that Israel kept bombing Lebanon and Tehran was not willing to sit at a peace table while that was happening.

Reports from regional media outlet Al Mayadeen, later confirmed by a US official speaking to Axios, indicated that Iran’s delegation held off travelling to Switzerland specifically because of fresh Israeli strikes on Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon. On Thursday, Israeli airstrikes killed four people there. By Thursday night, heavy fighting had broken out again just hours before Vance was supposed to fly out.

This matters because Hezbollah is Iran’s most important ally in the region. The militant group dragged Lebanon into the broader war back in March, launching attacks on Israel to retaliate for the killing of Iran’s previous supreme leader. For Tehran, Hezbollah’s fate is not a side issue, it is central to Iran’s position across the Middle East.

The problem is that Israel never agreed to stop fighting in Lebanon as part of the US-Iran deal. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made that clear, saying Israel would stay in a “security zone” in southern Lebanon for as long as necessary. His government’s position has been consistent: the ceasefire covers direct US-Iran fighting, not Israel’s war with Hezbollah.

So Iran faces an uncomfortable choice. If it goes to the negotiating table in Switzerland while Israel bombs its closest ally, it looks weak at home and to its allies. If it refuses to go until Lebanon is calm, the whole peace process stalls. For now, it chose to stay home.

Iran Wanted to See the Deal Working First

There is a second, separate reason Iran might have hesitated: it wanted proof that the US was actually implementing the agreement before sending diplomats to Switzerland.

Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency reported that the delegation needed to see “signs of the US implementing the interim deal” before committing to travel. In other words, Iran was not going to show up just because something had been signed on paper.

Washington’s view was different. The deal commits the US to issuing waivers on Iranian oil sanctions immediately upon signing. In Washington’s reading, the signature was the starting gun. Talks should begin right away.

Iran’s reading was more cautious. Show us it is working first, then we talk.

This gap reflects a deep trust problem between the two countries. Iran has been burned before. The US pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal entirely during Trump’s first term, reimposing sanctions that crippled Iran’s economy. Tehran is not inclined to take American promises at face value. And Iran’s foreign ministry even questioned why there needed to be a formal signing ceremony in Switzerland at all, since both presidents had already signed the document. A ceremony without visible results, from Tehran’s perspective, is just a photo opportunity.

The Deal Is Politically Uncomfortable, for Both Sides

The talks were also undermined by political pressure on both governments before they even started.

In Iran, new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei — who came to power after his father was killed in the first US-Israeli airstrike on February 28 — approved the deal, but made clear he was not happy about it. In a written statement, he said he held “a different view” on the agreement and only gave his blessing because President Pezeshkian and other officials had committed to protecting Iran’s interests. He also stressed that talking to the United States “will not mean accepting the enemy’s point of view.”

That kind of language sets a difficult tone before negotiations even begin. It signals to Iran’s domestic audience that there is very little room to be seen as giving anything away.

In the United States, the deal faces its own backlash. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy called it the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades.” Thirteen American soldiers died in the conflict. Critics argue Trump walked away from the fight too soon. Trump has defended the decision, arguing that continued bombing would have kept the Strait of Hormuz closed indefinitely and risked a global economic depression. But the political noise has not gone away, and it makes it harder for the US delegation to walk into talks looking ready to compromise.

When both sides are under pressure at home to look tough, sitting down and talking becomes a tad harder.

The Strait of Hormuz Is Not Fully Open Yet

One of the deal’s headline achievements was the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas passes, which Iran had blockaded during the conflict.

The US Navy did lift its blockade of Iranian ports on Thursday, and a handful of ships passed through, three Saudi oil tankers and a French gas vessel. But the picture is more complicated than those headlines suggest.

The strait’s main central shipping lane is still closed. According to the marine director of Intertanko, a global tanker industry group, there are an estimated 80 mines in the central route that need to be cleared before it is safe. Ships are currently using narrower alternative routes along the Iranian and Omani coastlines. On top of that, Iran announced that any ship wanting to pass through must now apply to a new Iranian government body set up to oversee the waterway. No fees for sixty days, under the terms of the deal but the requirement signals Iran intends to keep a hand on the controls.

With around 550 merchant vessels still waiting to leave the Gulf, the full economic benefit of a reopened Hormuz is a long way off. And it gives both sides room to argue about whether the other is actually keeping their end of the bargain.

What Comes Next

The most realistic short-term outcome is a delay of days or weeks not a collapse. Both sides still have strong reasons to keep the deal alive. Iran wants sanctions relief and economic breathing room. The US wants oil flowing and global markets calm. Those practical interests have not changed.

Trump posted on Truth Social Thursday calling for a “complete ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Israel.” That is an acknowledgement that the Lebanon problem cannot simply be wished away. But leaning on Israel to stop its operations in Lebanon carries real political costs for Washington too.

One postponement does not mean the deal is dead. Diplomatic talks get delayed all the time.

But the reasons behind this particular delay are not small. Israel’s ongoing strikes in Lebanon go to the heart of what Iran needs from this agreement. Tehran’s demand to see results before talking reflects a genuine mistrust that goes back years. Political pressure on both governments to appear tough makes compromise harder to sell at home. And the 60-day window to resolve some of the most complex issues in international relations is, to put it plainly, very tight.