Top US and Iranian officials are to fly to Switzerland this week and sign a framework authorizing “an immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts”, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
The official ceremony is scheduled for Friday.
US President Donald Trump this weekend reiterated Sharif’s announcement, saying an agreement had been reached to end the war. Iranian officials indicated cautious support but refused to fully acknowledge all reported details.
It is worth noting that Trump’s previous optimism has repeatedly ended in disappointment, and the latest peace proposal may even fail before reaching the signing stage in Switzerland.
Many of its stated terms are vague and politically disputed, and even if Tehran and Washington ratify it on Friday, the framework reportedly leaves key questions – including disputes over Iran’s nuclear program – to be resolved in the 60 days following the signing ceremony.
Contradictory narratives from the beginning
US and Iranian sources have given competing narratives about what the agreement actually includes. Iranian semi-official and affiliated media circulated it as a 14-point draft memorandum, which included a cessation of fighting on all fronts, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days, partial sanctions relief, access to frozen Iranian funds, and two months of follow-up talks focused on the nuclear issue and sanctions. These details have not been independently verified.
Iranian state television considered the announcement a diplomatic success. However, Iranian hard-liners moved quickly to attack the deal, arguing that it gives benefits without receiving substantial benefits in return. Ultraconservative critics see the arrangement as an unacceptable degradation, while government supporters insist it preserves key red lines and prevents a wider disaster.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi recently urged media outlets not to speculate about the contents of the memorandum while the process is still ongoing. Trump reposted Arracchi’s message on social media and described it as “very positive”, lending credence to the notion that both sides wanted to signal positive momentum without fully disclosing the final text.
What do America and Iran stand to gain?
Babak Dorbeki, a London-based political analyst and former official at Iran’s Center for Strategic Research, said the deal appears to offer few immediate strategic benefits to each side while further escalating difficult issues.
“The main benefits for Iran are an end to the US naval blockade, short-term relief for oil sales and a written US statement respecting Iranian sovereignty,” he told DW.
Dorbeki said Tehran may also see the arrangement as a way to maintain domestic legitimacy for the regime by showing it did not step down under pressure. But he also pointed towards Iran’s problems. The version of the deal presented by the Americans indicates a far harsher outcome to the nuclear dispute, including the removal of enriched material and long-term monitoring, while the Iranian message suggests that enrichment itself could survive in some form. Dorbecki said these two narratives do not sit easily together.
For Washington, Dorbecki said, the benefits are different. A ceasefire would end a costly military campaign, reduce pressure on global energy markets and potentially provide greater security on the nuclear issue than a narrow arms-control framework.
But he also warned that the US still faces verification problems, internal political divisions and resistance from pro-Israel forces unhappy with any arrangement that leaves Iran’s broader regional stances untouched.
Israel is not a party, but it can shape the outcome
One of the most obvious limitations of the agreement is that Israel is not formally a party to it, even though it is deeply affected by it. This matters because some of the most sensitive regional conflicts, particularly in Lebanon, depend largely on steps taken by Israel.
Dorbecki pointed out that this is one of the structural weak points of the deal. In his view, Washington may be willing to accept a framework that reduces immediate risks and restores maritime stability, while Israel may continue to take unilateral action in Gaza, Lebanon or Syria if it feels the agreement does not adequately address its concerns.
That possibility has prompted criticism even inside Iran. Guardian Iranian hard-liners have described the deal as a disgraceful compromise, as they believe it does not guarantee compensation, widespread sanctions relief or durable security gains for Tehran, the report said.
Relief abroad, anger at home
The announcement drew supportive reactions from world leaders including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
Senior Israeli officials were much less enthusiastic, with Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir posting that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us” and that Israel should not settle for “anything less than eliminating Hezbollah” or “withdrawal from any territory that our fighters have captured and cleared of terrorist infrastructure.”
This resentment from senior Israeli circles is likely to be amplified by Israel’s political allies within the US. Prominent pro-war commentators such as Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro have already questioned the peace agreement, with Shapiro condemning the signing ceremony scheduled in Switzerland as a “terrible idea” and a “huge photo op” for the Iranian regime.
However, their criticism is tempered by the fact that details of the outline are unverified, with both commentators calling on the White House to release the full text.
But some analysts believe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no choice but to play along.
“Donald Trump is going to get what he wants in an Israeli prime minister,” Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told DW. Miller said Netanyahu is seeking re-election on the issue and needs Trump’s “active support.”
“Netanyahu wants to do what Trump wants him to do,” he said.
Understanding ‘small for small’
Paris-based political analyst Reza Alijani cautions that the agreement should be understood primarily as a limited memorandum, not a full agreement.
“It’s a small understatement for a small one,” he told DW.
He said Tehran appears to have accepted the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a return to pre-war shipping conditions, at least in principle, while the United States is prepared to ease the naval blockade. He discussed that at the center of understanding is immediate cash-value exchange. Everything more ambitious has effectively been pushed to the next 60 days.
Alijani also pointed to Lebanon as one of the most revealing parts of the arrangement. In his view, Tehran’s late and cautious response to ongoing Israeli attacks there appears to suggest that Iran has already decided to set aside one part of that dispute in order to reduce broader tensions. He said some of the more ambitious Iranian demands, including monetary compensation, a complete US military withdrawal from the region or taxation on ships passing through Hormuz, were now either too soft or effectively removed from the framework.
The analyst said the question of guarantees remains very important and the practical path for implementation is still unclear.
A historic peace agreement to end the fighting?
The most important benefit may be a positive change in the political environment. The language of the ceasefire, the planned signing ceremony and Pakistan’s and Trump’s public support all indicate a major step forward. But competing narratives about sanctions, Iran’s nuclear program, Lebanon, the Strait of Hormuz and enforcement mechanisms suggest the deal may be easier to announce than implement.
The agreement may be effective enough to stop the fighting – for now. Whether it meets the core demands of all sides, or simply postpones the next round of confrontation, will likely be decided within 60 days after Friday’s summit in Switzerland.
Edited by: Darko Janjevic