Last week, the Trump administration signed an initial agreement aimed at pausing hostilities with Iran, but significant challenges remain, particularly over Tehran’s nuclear program. Vice President JD Vance has been in Switzerland engaging with Iranian officials, setting a 60-day window to negotiate a comprehensive deal. This timeframe contrasts with the Obama administration’s 2015 agreement, which took over a year and a half to finalize.

Thomas L. Friedman, an opinion columnist experienced in Middle East affairs, described the current U.S.-Iran tensions as a clash between contrasting worldviews: “Kushnerism,” named after Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, and “Khomeinism,” referring to the Islamic Republic’s ideological founder, Ayatollah Khomeini. Friedman characterized the Trump administration’s approach as one driven more by short-term political calculations than by strategic diplomacy.

Friedman contended that rising oil prices and domestic economic pressures heavily influenced Trump’s decision to seek an end to the conflict before the midterm elections. He argued that the administration prioritized lowering fuel costs in key swing states over the interests of Israel and Gulf allies. The cease-fire memorandum, Friedman said, included provisions to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and allow Iran to sell oil for dollars, laying groundwork for broader negotiations on Iran’s nuclear fissile material stockpiles. However, he cautioned that “details are all to be determined” and noted conflicting reports between U.S. and Iranian officials on commitments such as permitting international nuclear inspectors.

The columnist criticized the Trump administration’s diplomatic strategy, highlighting the delegation of responsibilities to Vice President Vance, who lacks extensive foreign policy experience, instead of the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who has largely stayed out of the process. Friedman also emphasized the absence of a cohesive government bureaucracy backing these negotiations, attributing it to what he described as a “no-bid” approach, likening it to other administration decisions lacking competitive oversight.

Friedman drew parallels between the current challenges and a lack of seasoned leadership comparable to figures like Henry Kissinger, who managed complex Middle East negotiations in the past. He expressed concern that Iran has linked the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to the fate of Hezbollah in Lebanon, an Iranian proxy militia, threatening to close the strait again if Israel continues military actions against Hezbollah. This linkage, he suggested, complicates regional dynamics and hampers prospects for peace in Lebanon and broader normalization efforts between Israel and its neighbors.

Addressing the prospects for a renewed nuclear deal, Friedman contrasted the current approach with the Obama administration’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which focused on stringent inspections to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon for at least 15 years. He described the Iran issue as a “wicked problem” without simple solutions and questioned the current administration’s capacity to negotiate effectively or deliver on promises, given internal discord and a fragmented policy team.

Friedman also reflected on the broader consequences of the Trump administration’s decisions, noting the erosion of U.S. coherence in the Middle East and the risks posed by sidelining traditional diplomatic and intelligence institutions. He underscored the complexity of the situation, involving multiple actors, including Israel, Hezbollah, Lebanese and Iraqi militias, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Ultimately, Friedman expressed guarded hope that “Kushnerism” could prevail over “Khomeinism,” but acknowledged deep uncertainties. He lamented the absence of experienced leadership to manage the fallout, warning that without careful stewardship, the region could descend into further instability. The current U.S. approach, he suggested, reflects impatience and a desire to declare premature victories, despite the intricate and volatile nature of Middle Eastern geopolitics.