When Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif appeared before cameras on the evening of June 14 and said, "The US and Iran have reached an agreement, signing will take place on June 19 in Switzerland," the name of the war that had been ongoing in the Middle East for three months effectively changed. Since the war began at the end of February, the Strait of Hormuz had been effectively closed, energy prices had risen, and tensions had escalated along a broad front from Lebanon to the Red Sea.
Now, the focus is shifting from operational plans on the ground to the fine print of the agreement text. This section contains key reference points related to the issue. (Related Nodes field)
The Tehran side emphasizes that the memorandum of understanding is ready, that the blockade on Hormuz will end, and that sanctions will be eased in exchange for steps back in the nuclear program. Washington announced the agreement is "completed" but refers to a 60-day negotiation window. In other words, there is both a ceasefire and a framework open to extended negotiations.
In short, the ceremony in Switzerland appears less like an ending and more like the opening scene of a search for a new regional order. Interestingly, this agreement was shaped not directly in Doha, Vienna, or Geneva, but first in Islamabad. Pakistan's role as mediator also indicates that the center of global power struggles is gradually shifting to other capitals.
The "peace table" is no longer solely the domain of traditional Western diplomacy; actors like Islamabad have entered the game. The talks held in early April in Islamabad, which lasted 21 hours, focused less on the military toll of the war and more on three political issues: the Lebanon front, the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium.
The parties sat down for a ceasefire, but in the first round, no common ground was found on how Israel's operations in Lebanon would stop, who would "protect" maritime trade in Hormuz and under what procedures, and the fate of Iran's uranium stockpile. Iran demanded compensation for war damages and permanent security guarantees, while Washington insisted on irreversible abandonment of the nuclear program.
At the end of the Islamabad talks, the phrase "no agreement" prevailed, but the parameters of the negotiations were actually set. To understand the text to be signed today in Switzerland, it is necessary to recall the statements made during those 21 hours. At the time, a phrase debated in regional media was: "The US came not to solve but to measure our will."
This assessment from the Tehran side showed that Iran held onto its skepticism even as it sat at the table. Reaching the signing stage now does not mean that doubt has completely disappeared; it only shows that the cost on the ground has pushed diplomacy forward. The draft texts of the agreement highlight the Strait of Hormuz as a key issue.
Tehran agrees to "fully reopen" the vital oil and gas transit route; in return, it wants the US blockade lifted and commitments verified. The crisis in Hormuz should not be underestimated. During the crisis, reports prepared for the Strait raised the risk level to the highest, warning commercial ships that it was "not safe." Now, the situation is reversing.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guards promise safe passage "with new procedures," and Washington is gradually implementing orders to lift the naval blockade. In other words, the same maritime area is transforming within months from the hottest front of the war to the most concrete test field of reconciliation. New layers of power struggle are coming into play here. Who will establish effective control over Hormuz?
Will Iranian naval patrols and the US Navy stand side by side in the new era, or will a "coordinated distance" be maintained? No matter how much insurance costs for energy companies fall, no one will fully relax without answers to these questions. The key to Hormuz has become a political rather than a military issue; however, no single party holds the key alone. Lebanon front: Silence or a pause before the storm?
The Pakistani Prime Minister emphasized that the agreement includes "the immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon." This statement shows how ambitious the text is on paper. However, anyone following the Lebanon front must approach the word "permanent" cautiously. Lebanon remains one of the most sensitive nerve points in the Iran-Israel tension.
Hezbollah's rocket capacity, Israel's air superiority, and the logistics lines running through Syria create a dynamic that can break short-term ceasefires at any moment. The agreement text cannot change this equation with a single signature. However, extending the ceasefire to Lebanon shows that the parties at least want to remove the risk of "full-scale war" from the table in the short term. Israel's position will be decisive here.
So far, statements from Tel Aviv focus on whether the agreement "closes the path to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons." There is ambiguous silence on the Lebanon issue. If Hezbollah changes engagement rules along the border after the signing in Switzerland, even if this change does not immediately affect the field, it is clear that sharp debates will arise within Israel's domestic politics and security bureaucracy.
In other words, the agreement to be signed in Switzerland does not dry up the ground in Lebanon. It slightly lowers the water level, leaving fertile ground for new cracks in the future. Pakistan and Switzerland: The changing face of the table
The least discussed aspect of this process is the question of "where the meeting took place." Islamabad had not hosted such a high-profile meeting on the Iran-US line for a long time. Pakistan is a country trying to manage relations simultaneously with the West, China, and the Gulf. This position naturally turns it into a mediator profile.
Shahbaz Sharif being the leader to announce the agreement to the world also changes the question of "who tells the peace story?" If a similar agreement had occurred during the Cold War, the first announcement would likely have come from Washington or Geneva. Today, the political narrative of the peace process is shaped through Islamabad; Switzerland hosts the symbolic final scene of the process.
This picture shows that the number of intermediary actors in global diplomacy is increasing. The mediation roles undertaken by countries like Turkey, Egypt, and Qatar over the last decade are now gaining a new link through Pakistan. China's calls to "stop military actions" in the crisis also indicate the growing claim of the Global South to have a voice in such issues.
The power struggle in the Middle East is increasingly intertwined with "multicentric diplomacy." Where is the regional power struggle concentrated? To see the real impact of the US-Iran agreement on the ground, two areas must be closely watched. The first is Iran's nuclear program and sanctions dimension.
The revealed draft texts show Tehran's commitment to halt its nuclear weapons pursuit; in return, there is a plan for gradual easing of sanctions and unfreezing of assets. The main tension here lies in the claim of "irreversibility."
Once nuclear capacity is acquired, that knowledge cannot be erased; the signed texts can at best guarantee monitoring and slowing down. The second area is maritime and land corridors. Normalizing oil flow through Hormuz will ease price pressures in Europe and Asia. This will also reposition the energy diplomacy of Gulf countries.
Similarly, how Iran's logistical flow along the Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon line will be controlled and to what extent land corridors will be monitored will be among the most debated topics of the new era. From Turkey's perspective, this creates a complex but opportunity-filled picture. Ankara has been pursuing a "balance policy" both within NATO and in regional diplomacy.
Reduced tension in Hormuz lowers energy supply risks, while a temporary easing in Iran's nuclear file could allow Turkey to more clearly formulate its security priorities along the Iraq and Syria lines. Realistically, the agreement to be signed will neither instantly turn Iran into a "normal" regional actor nor create a scenario where the US withdraws from the Middle East.
However, we are entering a phase where the two sides, having seen the cost of war, have decided to continue their power struggle through other means. Signs on the ground indicate that the signatures in Switzerland will not be the "final act." Just as the Middle East map tightened suddenly when Hormuz was closed, not all lines will soften at once as it reopens. Although the intensity of the fire decreases, the power struggle will continue through new channels.
This agreement resembles the first station of a longer period; the real test will be how the parties manage the post-signing phase. 1. 2. 3.
