The Switzerland Deal: A New President and a Middle East Shrouded in Uncertainty

The effects of the U.S.-Iran agreement are not confined to halting military operations in exchange for opening the Strait of Hormuz, along with a few other clauses. The issue almost casts a wider shadow, extending far beyond Iran itself.

Some have considered the Switzerland negotiations between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. Vice President JD Vance to be a move aimed at polishing the latter’s image so he could have a chance to run in his country’s 2028 presidential election. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio was expected to secure his party’s nomination for the next presidential race, some saw him as lying low during the war on Iran — a war many have viewed as a foolish, needless gamble. As Rubio has hedged against responsibility for whatever the war would lead to, Vance suddenly has appeared to be the desired man of the hour, despite hints that he would turn into Donald Trump’s scapegoat if the Switzerland negotiations failed when all parties go to Switzerland.

Many believe that the deal between Washington and Tehran serves to confer international legitimacy on Vance, who released, just days ago, his personal memoirs, or rather a second volume of his memoirs, the first volume of which he published 10 years ago. In the new volume, he has noted his conversion to Catholicism and touched on his faith journey between doubt and certainty. This has been seen by some as presenting the credentials of a conservative, religious man fit to lead his country in the near future.

Staging the scene in this way has raised questions about why Trump, who is known for monopolizing and adoring the limelight, would cede the spotlight to someone else. And no answer has seemed more fitting than that the negotiations were a public grooming of the vice president for the upcoming elections. Still, Trump has not missed the chance to engage in a side battle with former President Barack Obama, who had previously signed a deal with Iran in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 2015.

Comparisons have been drawn between the two deals, and many have concluded that Iran’s gains from its deal with Trump surpass the gains from its deal with Obama. The deal with the orange man amounts to nothing more than general and sometimes vague clauses that will allow massive, swift financial inflows to Iran and lift the yoke of sanctions from its shoulders, whereas Obama’s deal was detailed, ran to 180 pages, and was concluded in the presence of several international parties and world powers such as China, Russia and the European Union.

In an interview with Axios about three days ago, Trump asserted that his deal is better because he destroyed Iran's military capabilities and knocked out its leadership twice. He was referring to the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of the revolution, as well as the death of Qassem Soleimani, the most prominent face of the Revolutionary Guard. It is not quite clear what he meant by knocking out its leadership twice, since invoking Soleimani here seemed forced.

During the interview, Trump indulged his hobby of dispensing information mixed with impressions, propped up by lies, laced with threats, drowning in sweeping generalities, detached from specifics, born of delusions, entangled in comparisons, and embroiled in never-ending conflicts with various parties. To this day, he still mocks Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Obama, hurling insults and criticisms at them as if his battle with them were not yet over.

With this deal, which appears to be on the verge of completion despite Israeli efforts to obstruct it, the Revolutionary Guard finds itself facing a new world in which Iran will open up economically. Simultaneously, its legal status as a terrorist organization will be a stumbling block to the colossal financial activities in which it intervenes and the way it partners with its country's institutions, even if through covers and veils.

How will Iran deal with its Revolutionary Guard, which at times seems to be outbidding its own political-diplomatic course? And in the future, might it obstruct the economic opportunity that has suddenly opened up amid efforts to inject $300 billion?

The deal has cast a shadow over Israel, which is reeling domestically to such a great degree that it feels betrayed, according to the British Guardian's correspondent in Tel Aviv, as he canvassed citizens' opinions.

The deal has also heightened tensions between Tel Aviv and Washington, with hints of delaying the delivery of American weapons to Israel and accusations of Mossad spying on American leaders and institutions.

With this deal likely to be ratified, some analysts have been preoccupied with the new Middle East arrangements. Who will ally with whom, against whom, after the rules of the game have changed to this extent? Some are of the opinion that the most likely scenario to materialize is Turkey leading an alliance that includes major Arab countries, with Pakistan in the background, supportive and involved. The overarching headline would be containing the Israeli danger, encircling it, and shackling its craziness.

The likelihood of Turkey leading this alliance does not appear unrelated to its performance in Mali amid the recent turmoil, its attempts at an African presence vying with a number of global powers, its activity in the "Eurasian" space between Europe and Asia and its massive armament project. However, this likelihood overlooks the willingness of Arab parties to engage under a direct Turkish umbrella, given the contradiction of these parties' interests with Ankara on other matters, some of which are politicized and tied to Israel as well.

Therefore, what the Switzerland negotiations ultimately lead to may help determine who the next U.S. president will be, as much as they will define the rules of the game in the Middle East, and as much as they will help paint a picture of Israel's near future.