Fresh uncertainty has emerged over the implementation of the newly signed US-Iran peace agreement after US Vice President JD Vance cancelled a planned trip to Switzerland, where negotiations were expected to begin on putting the 14-point accord into action.
A White House spokesperson confirmed that Vance would no longer travel to Geneva for the talks, which were expected to focus on technical details of the agreement reached between Washington and Tehran to end nearly four months of conflict.
US officials had earlier announced plans for a formal signing ceremony in Switzerland. However, Iran’s Foreign Ministry questioned the need for such an event, noting that both countries’ presidents had already signed the agreement on Wednesday.
The diplomatic uncertainty comes despite both nations agreeing to extend a fragile ceasefire by at least 60 days while negotiations continue.
Iran previously indicated it was prepared to begin technical discussions but later suggested it wanted to see evidence that Washington was implementing its commitments under the interim agreement before further talks could proceed.
Iranian media also reported that there was no confirmation whether Tehran’s delegation would travel to Geneva for the next round of negotiations.
According to the White House, Vance and the US delegation had been prepared to depart once arrangements were finalised, but officials acknowledged that the logistics surrounding the negotiations remained unpredictable.
The latest developments have raised questions over whether the ceasefire can evolve into a lasting peace agreement after a conflict that reportedly claimed more than 7,000 lives, disrupted global energy markets and triggered economic uncertainty worldwide.
The agreement provides negotiators with 60 days to reach a broader settlement regarding Iran’s nuclear programme, with the option to extend the timeline if both sides agree.
It also includes plans for a US$300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran and other economic incentives, while Washington hopes to secure limits on Iran’s long-range missile capabilities during future talks.
When the conflict began, President Donald Trump stated that his objectives included dismantling Iran’s nuclear programme, preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, weakening its regional military influence and reducing support for allied militant groups.
However, critics argue that the current agreement falls short of those goals.
Under the accord, Iran reaffirmed its long-standing position that it does not seek nuclear weapons and agreed to allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) while reducing the enrichment level of its uranium stockpile within the country.
The deal does not require Iran to remove its enriched uranium reserves, a key demand previously made by Washington.
US officials maintain that future negotiations could still produce a stronger and more comprehensive nuclear agreement than the 2015 deal that Trump withdrew from during his first term in office.
Meanwhile, opponents of the agreement argue that Iran has emerged from the conflict in a stronger position after withstanding military pressure, maintaining influence over the Strait of Hormuz and securing relief from certain economic restrictions.
Iran has also stated that it intends to continue overseeing shipping activities in the Strait of Hormuz alongside neighbouring Oman and may introduce service fees for vessels once the negotiation period concludes.
Elsewhere, concerns remain over the situation in Lebanon despite the broader peace agreement.
Israeli forces carried out fresh airstrikes in Lebanon on Thursday, raising doubts about whether all parties involved in the regional conflict are prepared to embrace a full ceasefire.
Although the agreement calls for the permanent end of hostilities in Lebanon and respect for the country’s sovereignty, Israel has indicated it does not intend to withdraw from Lebanese territory and has published a map showing an expanded security zone.
Trump has recently voiced increasing frustration over Israel’s military operations in Lebanon, signalling growing tensions between Washington and one of its closest allies.
Observers say the disagreements could complicate efforts to achieve lasting stability across the region, even as negotiations between the United States and Iran continue.
