Given the failure of this weekend\u2019s peace talks and President Trump\u2019s blockade of Iranian ports, it seems increasingly likely that America and Iran may once again wage war in the skies above Tehran and Isfahan, on the waters of the Persian Gulf, and potentially on the ground too.<\/p>\n
But this conflict will ultimately be ended not by bullets or bombs, but by backchannel diplomacy. And as Switzerland\u2019s former ambassador to Iran \u2014 where I officially represented Washington\u2019s interests in Tehran \u2014 I know what it\u2019ll take for both nations to ink a peace deal.<\/p>\n
For more than 150 years, Switzerland has served as a trusted go-between for countries without diplomatic ties, often acting as a \u201cprotecting power\u201d and mediating between hostile governments. We first took on this responsibility during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 \u2014 the period from which the modern institution of protecting power originates. Since then, we\u2019ve carried it into some of the world\u2019s greatest conflicts, representing as many as 35 countries during World War II.<\/p>\n
That depth of experience explains why Washington has consistently turned to Switzerland for diplomatic assistance. When the United States broke off relations with Cuba in 1961, Switzerland stepped in as protecting power and maintained that role until President Obama restored relations between Washington and Havana in 2015 \u2014 and continues to represent Cuba\u2019s interests in the U.S. to this day.<\/p>\n
We\u2019ve likewise served as the United States\u2019 protecting power in Iran. After Iranian students took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held Americans hostage, the United States cut diplomatic ties 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 talks and served as a diplomatic backchannel between the United States and Iran, even hosting negotiations for agreements like the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement.<\/p>\n
Our decades spent navigating the complex relationship between the United States and Iran have taught us a few important lessons about ending conflicts like this one.<\/p>\n
First, it\u2019s essential to keep back channels like ours open \u2014 even during active conflict, someone must be able to speak to both sides. Time and again, these communication channels have prevented greater escalation.<\/p>\n
After the United States killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, for example, the Trump administration relied on a Swiss back channel to communicate with Iran and contain the situation.<\/p>\n
Having been in charge of such cases of secret communications, I can only assume, that encrypted messages were brought to the attention of the Iranian Foreign Ministry via Switzerland\u2019s embassy in Tehran. Even as Iran\u2019s supreme leader publicly warned of \u201charsh retaliation\u201d and President Trump threatened new targets, both countries must have been sending more measured messages through Swiss channels to avoid a broader conflict.<\/p>\n
Only a country with relatively independent foreign policies, one that\u2019s viewed as a widely trusted third party, can facilitate this sort of dialogue. Right now, Pakistan \u2014 which serves as Iran\u2019s protecting power in Washington \u2014 has stepped forward to host those negotiations. It\u2019s a welcome, well-intentioned effort, even if Pakistani mediators struggled to align both parties on the precise terms of the recent ceasefire, including the scope of Israel\u2019s military operations in Lebanon.<\/p>\n
But both Iran and America sometimes struggle to fully trust Pakistan, which launched retaliatory airstrikes on Iranian territory in January 2024 \u2014 killing at least nine people \u2014 and also provided assistance to the Afghan Taliban against American troops.<\/p>\n
Switzerland, by contrast, isn\u2019t exactly known for its bombing campaigns or support for proxy militias.<\/p>\n
Second, it\u2019s important to remember that peace agreements only last when all parties can claim at least a partial victory. A lopsided settlement tends to trigger lasting resentment and renewed war.<\/p>\n
The Treaty of Versailles, for example, marked the end of World War I, but historians commonly cite it as a major contributor to the Nazi Party\u2019s rise and the outbreak of World War II.<\/p>\n
Of course, that doesn\u2019t mean that any eventual peace deal will perfectly balance the victors\u2019 and vanquished\u2019s demands. But the terms \u2014 whatever they may be \u2014 must be flexible enough that the losing party can at least save face.<\/p>\n
Iran, for instance, has demanded reparations for the damage caused by U.S. airstrikes. The White House, meanwhile, has offered to lift sanctions and unfreeze assets in return for various concessions. If the cash flows, both sides can frame it as they see fit for their domestic audiences.<\/p>\n
Switzerland has always prided itself on keeping doors open when others are closing them. Now, as the conflict escalates and the global economic pain compounds, Switzerland stands ready to assist the United States and Iran, just as we\u2019ve done for decades.<\/p>\n
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.<\/p>\n