Given the failure of this weekend’s peace talks and President Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports, it seems increasingly likely that the US and Iran could once again go to war in the skies over Tehran and Isfahan, in the waters of the Persian Gulf and potentially on land.
But this conflict will ultimately be settled not by bullets or bombs, but by back-channel diplomacy. And as Switzerland’s former ambassador to Iran — where I officially represented Washington’s interests in Tehran — I know what it will take for both nations to sign a peace deal.
For more than 150 years, Switzerland has served as a trusted go-between for countries without diplomatic relations, often acting as a “protecting power” and mediating between hostile governments. We first took on this responsibility during the Franco-Prussian War of the 1870s—the period from which the modern institution of conservation of power originates. Since then, we’ve made it to the world’s biggest conflicts, representing more than 35 countries during World War II.
That depth of experience explains why Washington continues to turn to Switzerland for diplomatic support. When the United States severed ties with Cuba in 1961, Switzerland stepped in as a protectorate of power and maintained that role until President Obama restored relations between Washington and Havana in 2015—and continues to represent Cuban interests in the U.S. to this day.
We have also acted as the United States’ security force in Iran. After Iranian students seized the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held Americans hostage, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran in April 1980 and asked Switzerland to represent its interests. Switzerland formally accepted the mandate in May 1980. Since then, Switzerland has facilitated negotiations between the United States and Iran and acted as a diplomatic backchannel, hosting negotiations for agreements such as the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal.
Our decades spent navigating the complex relationship between the United States and Iran have taught us some important lessons about ending a conflict like this one.
First, it’s important to keep channels like ours open — even in times of active conflict, someone should be able to talk to both sides. Time and time again, these communication channels have prevented major growth.
After the United States killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, for example, the Trump administration relied on the Swiss back channel to communicate with Iran and control the situation.
Being responsible for such incidents of secret communications, I can only assume, the secret messages were brought to the attention of the Iranian Foreign Ministry through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran. Even as Iran’s supreme leader publicly warned of “harsh retaliation” and President Trump threatened new targets, both countries must have been sending more measured messages through Swiss channels to avoid a wider conflict.
Only a country with a relatively independent foreign policy, which is widely seen as a trustworthy third party, can facilitate this kind of dialogue. Now, Pakistan – which acts as Iran’s security force in Washington – has stepped forward to host those talks. It’s a welcome, well-intentioned effort, even if Pakistani mediators have struggled to align the two sides on the precise terms of the recent ceasefire, including the scope of Israel’s military operations in Lebanon.
But both Iran and the US sometimes struggle to fully trust Pakistan, which launched retaliatory airstrikes on Iranian soil in January 2024 – killing at least nine people – and also provided support to the Afghan Taliban against US forces.
Switzerland, by contrast, is not exactly known for its bombing campaigns or support of proxy militias.
Second, it is important to remember that peace agreements only last if all parties can claim at least partial victory. Unilateral settlement triggers permanent resentment and renewed war.
For example, the Treaty of Versailles marked the end of World War I, but historians cite it as a major contributor to the rise of the Nazi Party and the outbreak of World War II.
Of course, this does not mean that any final peace agreement will perfectly balance the demands of the victors and vanquished. But the terms—whatever they are—must be flexible enough that the losing side can at least save face.
For example, Iran has demanded compensation for damage caused by US airstrikes. Meanwhile, the White House has offered to lift sanctions and unfreeze assets in exchange for various concessions. If cash flows, both parties can frame it as they see fit for their domestic audiences.
Switzerland has always prided itself on keeping its doors open when others are closing them. Now, as the conflict escalates and global economic pain compounds, Switzerland stands ready to support the United States and Iran, as we have done for decades.
The views expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs. fate.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
