The United States and Iran formally entered a critical 60-day negotiation phase on Thursday, as Vice-President JD Vance confirmed the memorandum of understanding signed by President Donald Trump and Iranian leaders had taken effect. The start was delayed slightly by time-zone differences, with the document validated in the early hours in Tehran, but Vance was unequivocal at a White House briefing: “The 60-day period officially started today.” Under the interim pact, Iran commits to neither acquiring nor developing nuclear weapons and to withdrawing enriched uranium under international supervision, while Washington prepares to lift sanctions. The framework also enshrines the principle that the Strait of Hormuz, the vital artery for global oil and gas shipments, should remain free of tolls, though the precise governance mechanism is left to final negotiations.

Viewed from Washington, the announcement was as much a political defence as a diplomatic milestone. The deal has drawn sharp criticism from within Trump’s own Republican Party, with sceptics questioning whether Tehran can be trusted. Vance and the president have pushed back forcefully, arguing the moment has arrived to test Iran’s willingness to negotiate “in good faith.” The administration’s message, however, extended well beyond domestic audiences. In a direct challenge to Israel, Vance dismissed objections from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government as an “excessive reading” of the accord and insisted that Israel cannot address all its security challenges through military force alone. He further warned that attacks on Beirut resulting in civilian deaths were “unacceptable,” signalling that Lebanon’s stability is now woven into the fabric of the de-escalation effort.

From the eastern Mediterranean, the development places Lebanon at the heart of a new diplomatic geometry. The memorandum’s regional implications are designed to lower tensions across multiple fronts, and Beirut, long a theatre for proxy conflict, is cited explicitly as a beneficiary of the nascent peace process. Israeli analysts, however, remain deeply wary, viewing any relaxation of pressure on Iran as a strategic risk. The divergence underscores a broader transatlantic and regional debate: whether sequenced diplomacy can succeed where maximum pressure campaigns have stalled.

Analysts in London note that the 60-day clock now imposes a rigorous timeline on all parties. The hardest questions—permanent restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme, the scope of sanctions relief, and the final status of the Strait of Hormuz—have been kicked down the road, but the interim period compels engagement. For global energy markets, the prospect of a stable, toll-free waterway offers a tentative reprieve from the spectre of supply disruption. The coming weeks will reveal whether the Trump administration’s bet on direct engagement can reshape a region still defined by deep mistrust and the shadow of recent military escalation.