US and Iran set 60-day deal path

United States and Iranian negotiators ended their first round of high-level talks in Switzerland on Monday with an agreement to pursue a final settlement within 60 days, easing immediate fears of a wider regional confrontation after a volatile opening shaped by threats, maritime disruption and pressure from Gulf mediators.

A joint statement by Qatar and Pakistan said the two sides had accepted a roadmap for technical negotiations, with further sessions scheduled through the week at Bürgenstock, the Swiss mountain resort owned by Qatar. The process is being overseen by a High-Level Committee intended to turn an interim understanding into a broader deal covering nuclear limits, sanctions relief, maritime security and regional de-escalation.

The talks began under severe strain after Tehran said it had again closed the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which a large share of global oil and gas shipments passes. Washington disputed the scale of the closure but warned that any move to obstruct commercial shipping would draw a forceful response. President Donald Trump, while allowing talks to proceed through mediators, repeated that attacks on Iranian targets could resume if Tehran or its allied groups escalated.

The first session brought together senior officials from both governments after weeks of shuttle diplomacy by Doha and Islamabad. Vice-President JD Vance led the US side, while Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi represented Tehran. The Iranian delegation initially signalled anger over the US rhetoric, but mediators kept indirect channels open before both sides returned to structured discussions.

The Bürgenstock framework gives negotiators 60 days to define the terms of a final agreement. The immediate agenda includes a maritime communication channel to reduce the risk of incidents in the Strait of Hormuz, a mechanism to secure commercial passage, and a deconfliction arrangement linked to hostilities in Lebanon. Technical teams are expected to work on nuclear monitoring, sanctions sequencing, oil export permissions, frozen assets and enforcement guarantees.

The Strait of Hormuz remains central to the talks because its disruption has direct consequences for global energy markets. Around one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption moves through the waterway in normal conditions, while Gulf exporters have limited alternatives for rerouting crude and liquefied natural gas. Even partial restrictions raise insurance costs, slow tanker movement and add a geopolitical premium to oil prices.

Oil markets reacted with caution rather than relief. Traders viewed the 60-day roadmap as a sign that diplomacy had not collapsed, but the risk of further disruption remained high because Tehran’s claims of closure and Washington’s threats of renewed strikes left shipping companies, insurers and energy buyers facing a fragile operating environment. Asian economies, which absorb much of the oil and gas moving through Hormuz, remain particularly exposed to price swings and cargo delays.

The Switzerland talks follow an interim understanding reached earlier this month after months of escalation involving Iran, the United States, Israel and Iran-backed groups. That arrangement was meant to create space for negotiations, but its implementation has been uneven, with fighting in Lebanon and repeated warnings over shipping lanes testing its credibility.

Iran’s immediate demands include relief from oil-related sanctions, access to frozen funds and assurances that attacks linked to Israel and allied forces will not continue while negotiations are under way. Tehran also wants any nuclear commitments to be paired with verifiable economic benefits, a position that has shaped its approach since earlier nuclear diplomacy collapsed.

Washington is seeking limits on uranium enrichment, stronger monitoring arrangements and constraints on Iran’s regional military networks. US officials also want guarantees that Hormuz will remain open to commercial vessels and that armed groups aligned with Tehran will not use the negotiating period to reposition or intensify attacks.

Qatar’s role is significant because it maintains working relations with both Washington and Tehran and has previously acted as a financial and diplomatic channel in sensitive negotiations. Pakistan’s involvement reflects its geographic proximity, political access and interest in preventing a prolonged regional conflict that could disrupt energy flows and deepen economic pressures across South Asia.