Maybe after the 60 days they start fighting again
Three days after the United States and Iran signed a ceasefire accord in France — ending five weeks of open warfare that claimed thirteen American lives — the fragile architecture of peace is already showing its first cracks. Vice President Vance's postponed trip to Switzerland signals that the distance between a signed agreement and a durable peace remains vast, as it so often does when longtime adversaries attempt to rewrite the terms of their enmity. The sixty days ahead will ask both nations whether they can hold together what their leaders have promised, against the pull of hardliners, history, and mutual distrust.
- A ceasefire signed with ceremony at Versailles is already straining under its own weight, with technical talks postponed before they even began.
- Iran's new supreme leader approved the deal while publicly distancing himself from it, and his chief negotiator warned of a 'decisive response' to any breach — cautious optimism wrapped in a threat.
- American warships lifted their naval blockade of Iranian ports, and oil tankers moved through the Strait of Hormuz for the first time in weeks, offering a rare, concrete sign that the agreement is producing real-world change.
- Ordinary Iranians and French President Macron alike voiced doubt that the ceasefire would outlast its sixty-day window, while Republican critics at home called Trump's decision to stop bombing a historic blunder.
- Both governments are selling the same deal as a victory — a necessary fiction that may be the only thing keeping the agreement alive long enough to be tested.
Vice President JD Vance was supposed to fly to Switzerland on Friday to begin technical talks under a new US-Iran ceasefire agreement. Instead, the White House announced late Thursday that he was staying home. The postponement was small in itself, but it captured something essential about the ground beneath this so-called historic deal: it is not yet solid.
Three days earlier, President Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had signed an accord in France to end five weeks of open warfare that killed thirteen American service members and consumed enormous military resources. The agreement set a sixty-day clock for deeper negotiations on Iran's nuclear program and the long-poisoned relationship between the two countries. The Switzerland signing ceremony that was meant to follow never happened. "The logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable," a White House spokesperson said, offering nothing more.
In Tehran, Iran's new supreme leader — Mojtaba Khamenei, who came to power after his father was killed in an airstrike on the war's first day — approved the deal while making his reservations plain. He had a "different view," he said, but deferred to officials who had committed to protecting Iranian interests. His chief negotiator went further, warning publicly that any breach would bring a "decisive response."
On the ground, implementation moved forward in at least one visible way: American warships lifted their naval blockade of Iranian ports, and ships began passing through the Strait of Hormuz again. Three Saudi oil tankers and a French LNG carrier made the crossing Thursday. Iran established a new body to oversee the strait and waived transit fees for sixty days, as the deal required.
Yet doubt ran through both societies. A Tehran psychologist put it plainly: "I have no hope that this is a lasting agreement. Maybe after the 60 days they start fighting again." French President Macron, who presided over the Versailles signing, said he did not believe the war was "totally finished." Trump, defending his decision to stop the bombing rather than press further, argued the alternative risked a worldwide economic depression. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy called it the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.
In Iran, hardliners framed the conflict as an "imposed war" and debated whether the deal represented surrender. Pezeshkian called it "historic"; his negotiator called it a US "failure." Both sides are selling the same agreement as a victory — and the sixty days ahead will test whether that shared fiction is enough to hold.
Vice President JD Vance was supposed to fly to Switzerland on Friday for talks that would chart the course of a fragile new agreement between the United States and Iran. Instead, late Thursday evening, the White House announced he was staying put. The postponement was a small but telling sign of how uncertain the ground remains beneath what both sides are calling a historic deal.
Three days earlier, on Wednesday, President Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had signed an accord in France meant to end five weeks of open warfare that had killed thirteen American service members and consumed vast quantities of US military ammunition. The agreement set a sixty-day clock for deeper negotiations on Iran's nuclear program and the broader disputes that have poisoned relations between the two countries since the 1979 revolution. But the signing ceremony in Switzerland that was supposed to happen Friday—where technical talks would begin in earnest—never materialized. "The logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable," a White House spokesperson said, offering little detail about what had changed or when the talks might actually begin.
In Tehran, Iran's new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who took power after his father was killed in an airstrike on the war's first day in February, issued a written statement approving the deal while making clear his doubts. He had a "different view" of the agreement, he said, but gave his permission because officials including Pezeshkian had committed to protecting Iranian interests. The message was calibrated: yes to the deal, but no to any illusion that Iran was capitulating. "Face-to-face negotiations will be held in the future," he wrote, "but that does not mean accepting the enemy's point of view." Iran's chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, went further, warning on social media that any breach of the agreement would be met with a "decisive response."
Meanwhile, the United States began implementing its side of the bargain. American warships lifted a naval blockade of Iranian ports that had strangled the country's maritime commerce, though the vessels remained in the region. Ships started moving through the Strait of Hormuz, the critical chokepoint for global energy supplies that Iran had blockaded during the conflict. Three Saudi oil tankers and a French liquified natural gas carrier passed through on Thursday. Iran established a new government body to oversee passage through the strait and announced it would collect no fees for sixty days, in keeping with the deal's terms.
Yet skepticism about whether any of this would last ran deep on both sides. In Tehran, a fifty-four-year-old psychologist named Mina voiced what many felt: "I have no hope that this is a lasting agreement. Maybe after the 60 days they start fighting again." French President Emmanuel Macron, who presided over the signing at the Palace of Versailles, said he did not believe the war was "totally finished." The agreement promised immediate relief from oil sanctions that had crippled Iran's economy, and once a final nuclear deal was reached, the United States would help unlock a three-hundred-billion-dollar reconstruction fund from regional nations. But promises on paper and peace on the ground are different things.
Trump's decision to end the conflict rather than continue military pressure has drawn fire from his own party. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy called it the "worst foreign policy blunder in decades." When asked why he did not simply bomb Iran into further concessions, Trump argued the math did not work. "The only way I can get tougher is if I go in there for another two or three weeks and continue to bomb the hell out of 'em," he said in an interview. "But what does that get us? The Strait of Hormuz will not be open. We wouldn't have oil for months. This is the kind of thing that could cause a worldwide depression."
In Iran, hardliners have their own complaints. The conflict was described as an "imposed war," a phrase that echoed memories of the eight-year struggle against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 1980s. Yet Ghalibaf, the parliament speaker and lead negotiator, called the deal a US "failure," while Pezeshkian hailed it as "historic." The language of victory and defeat matters when you are trying to sell a ceasefire to populations exhausted by war but wary of surrender. The sixty days ahead will test whether either side can hold that line.
Citas Notables
The only way I can get tougher is if I go in there for another two or three weeks and continue to bomb the hell out of 'em. But what does that get us?— President Trump, defending the decision to end the conflict rather than pursue further military pressure
Face-to-face negotiations will be held in the future, but that does not mean accepting the enemy's point of view— Iran's supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei, on the limits of the agreement
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did Vance cancel the trip? Was there a specific incident that spooked the talks?
The White House didn't say. They just called it a logistics issue. But the timing matters—Iran's new supreme leader had just issued a statement approving the deal while making clear he had reservations. That kind of hedged support creates uncertainty about what the Iranian delegation would actually agree to in a room.
So both sides signed something on Wednesday, but they're not sure what they signed?
They signed an agreement to stop fighting and to spend sixty days talking about the bigger issues—nuclear weapons, sanctions, all of it. But the details of how those talks happen, where, when, who sits at the table—that's still being worked out. It's like they agreed to get married but haven't decided where to live.
What's the human cost here? You mentioned thirteen American deaths.
Thirteen US service members killed in five weeks of fighting. The war also consumed enormous amounts of ammunition and military resources. On the Iranian side, the numbers aren't clear from what we have, but it was a full-scale conflict. And now there's this exhaustion—people like Mina, the psychologist in Tehran, saying she doesn't believe it will last.
Is there a reason to think it won't last?
Sixty days is a very short window to solve problems that have festered for nearly fifty years. And both sides have domestic audiences that are skeptical. Trump's own party is calling it a blunder. Iran's hardliners see it as surrender. That kind of pressure from inside can break a deal faster than anything the other side does.
What's the economic angle?
Iran gets immediate relief from oil sanctions that have been strangling its economy. If a final nuclear agreement is reached, the US will help unlock three hundred billion dollars in reconstruction funding. That's real money. But it's conditional—it depends on Iran following through on nuclear commitments. And it depends on the ceasefire holding long enough to get there.
So the postponement of the Switzerland trip—is that a sign the deal is already in trouble?
It's a sign that implementation is messier than the signing ceremony made it look. But postponement isn't collapse. It's just the reality of two countries that have been enemies for decades trying to figure out how to talk to each other again.