Peace negotiations between the United States and Iran appeared to gain ground in Switzerland over the weekend, even as President Donald Trump reportedly threatened Iran with destruction, occupation, and violence against negotiators if Tehran moved forward with closing the Strait of Hormuz.
The talks, mediated by Pakistan and Qatar, produced what Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described as “major progress” toward a final agreement. But that progress came as Israel continued its assault and occupation in Lebanon, a central issue for Iran’s delegation and a growing obstacle to the fragile diplomatic process.
According to Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, Trump told Iranian negotiators overnight that if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, “you won’t have a country.” Yingst also reported that Trump said the negotiators “won’t even make it back to their f***ing country,” a comment that came as Iranian officials were engaged in talks meant to prevent the conflict from expanding further.
Trump’s remarks followed Iran’s announcement that it would close the Strait of Hormuz again after Israel escalated its bombing and deepened its occupation in southern Lebanon. The strait is one of the world’s most important commercial waterways, and any closure would immediately raise the stakes of the war beyond the region.
The president also reportedly directed threats at Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian after Pezeshkian said Iran would not give up its “right to enrich uranium” and that the United States “will be forced to accept it.” Trump reportedly said Pezeshkian should “watch his mouth” and “shape up,” or the United States “will take over the rest of the country.”
Those threats stand in direct tension with the memorandum of understanding that is supposed to guide the ceasefire and negotiations. According to the source material, the MOU calls on signatories to “refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.” It also requires the termination of military operations in Lebanon, where Israel’s continued occupation has become a red line for Iranian negotiators.
Trump’s latest comments also mark another reversal in his position on Iran’s nuclear program. After months of demanding “zero enrichment,” he recently acknowledged that it was “common sense” for Iran to be allowed a nuclear energy program, as other countries have. That shift suggested possible room for diplomacy, but the president’s threats to invade and occupy Iran threaten to undercut the very negotiations his administration is pursuing.
Trump also told Yingst that the United States could become the “guardian angel” of the Strait of Hormuz, collecting tolls and taking oil from countries that use the waterway for exports. He did not explain how the United States would gain control of the strait or under what authority it would collect tolls or seize oil.
The threat of a ground invasion comes despite the war’s unpopularity at home. According to the source material, the conflict with Iran is already deeply unpopular among the American public, even without U.S. boots on the ground. Polls have shown that even a majority of Republicans would oppose sending ground troops. Military officials have also shelved planned operations to occupy strategic locations, including Kharg Island, over concerns that such missions could lead to a large number of American casualties.
Trump’s threat to occupy Iran also contrasts with his earlier comments that continuing the war much longer would cause “economic catastrophe.” He had also suggested that even limited ground operations, including a proposal to seize Iran’s uranium, would be too large an effort to justify.
Despite the threats, Iranian and mediator statements late Sunday pointed to movement in the talks. Araghchi credited “tireless Pakistani and Qatari mediation” with securing commitments to establish a “deconfliction cell” aimed at ensuring “the termination of military operations in Lebanon.”
Araghchi also said negotiators agreed to an end to the U.S. blockade on Iran, the release of some frozen Iranian assets, and a “major reconstruction and development plan” for Iran. Those elements suggest the talks have moved beyond temporary crisis management and into the framework of a broader settlement.
In a joint statement, Pakistan and Qatar said negotiators agreed on “a roadmap towards reaching a final deal within 60 days, laying the foundation for the immediate commencement of further technical talks.” The two governments also said a communication line had been formed “to avoid incidents and miscommunication with the aim of safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.”
That communication channel could be critical if Iran’s Hormuz threat remains active while talks continue. It also reflects the reality that a single military incident in the waterway could derail negotiations and pull the United States deeper into the conflict.
But the central obstacle remains Lebanon. Israel is not a party to the peace negotiations, yet its actions in Lebanon may determine whether the U.S.-Iran process succeeds or collapses. Iran has said the Trump administration must force Israel to end its assault on Lebanon. Iranian negotiators have described an end to Israel’s occupation there as a red line.
The Israeli campaign and occupation in Lebanon have killed more than 4,000 people and forced more than 1.2 million Lebanese civilians from their homes in the south, according to the source material. Israel’s refusal to withdraw has continued even as the MOU’s ceasefire agreement is supposed to cover all fronts.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz made that refusal explicit, declaring that “Israel has no intention of withdrawing from the Beaufort, which is an integral part of the security zone in Lebanon and essential for the defense of the Galilee settlements and IDF forces.” Katz added, “As Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and I have clarified—Israel will not withdraw from the security zone in Lebanon.”
The source material also states that Trump has acknowledged behind the scenes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is using Lebanon to sabotage the ceasefire and drag the United States back into a full-scale war. Yet there is no indication that Trump is prepared to impose material consequences on Israel, such as suspending military aid, to force compliance with the ceasefire agreement.
Trump has voiced frustration with Israel’s conduct. In his call with Yingst, he reportedly said he was “disappointed Israel can’t put Hezbollah away,” and added that Israel “can’t do anything without knocking buildings down.” He also said he was close to allowing Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the former leader of al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, to take over the operation against Hezbollah.
Vice President JD Vance has also used harsher rhetoric toward Israel in recent days, but he did not indicate that the United States would apply more pressure. Speaking at a press conference in Switzerland on Sunday, Vance said, “I think Trump and the US have done more to stop the conflict in Lebanon than any government anywhere in the world.”
That claim is difficult to square with Israel’s continuing attacks, its refusal to withdraw from occupied areas, and Iran’s insistence that Lebanon is a condition for peace. The gap between the administration’s stated diplomatic goals and its unwillingness to constrain Israel is now one of the defining tensions in the negotiations.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, described Israel’s continued escalations as “an existential threat” to the peace process between the United States and Iran. He told ABC News that Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz before the Geneva meeting was meant to be “part of a background of how serious they are” about ensuring that Washington understands the stakes if Israel refuses to withdraw.
Parsi said Israel’s aims are not aligned with a negotiated settlement. “Israel would prefer for this war to continue until you have a complete defeat of the Iranians, which, of course, is not in the cards,” Parsi said. “The Israelis sold this war to Trump as a quick, easy fix to the region’s problems that would take no more than four days, and they were dead wrong.”
The next 60 days will test whether the U.S.-Iran process can move from crisis diplomacy to a durable agreement. The reported roadmap, deconfliction channel, and mediator-backed communication line through Hormuz all point toward a possible diplomatic off-ramp. But Trump’s threats against Iran and Israel’s continued refusal to leave Lebanon could still collapse the talks before a final agreement is reached.
For now, the sharpest warning to the peace process may be the position stated by Katz: “Israel will not withdraw from the security zone in Lebanon.”
COMMENTS