The Swiss have acted as the official protector of U.S. interests in Iran since the relations broke off between Washington and Tehran in 1980, and has at different stages helped in mediation efforts between the two.
"What if this is exactly where the Iran hawks in the administration and throughout Washington want us to be?" Absent serious provocation from Iran or Venezuela, Trump is unlikely to pursue a war of choice.
Under the accord, Tehran curbed its uranium enrichment capacity, a potential pathway to a nuclear bomb, and won sanctions relief in return.
Trump has taken a hard line on Iran since he took office in January 2017. If Tehran had announced back then that it was no longer bound by the agreement's restrictions, the connection between provocation and response, and the true source of whatever crisis ensued, would have been more obvious.
"We'll see what happens with Iran". In short, the Iranians' patience has worked against them as far as image and messaging are concerned.
"I'm comfortable that it is a well-thought-through strategy to make sure that Iran doesn't continue its adventures", said Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus who cosponsored a resolution forcing Trump to end United States support for the war in Yemen. He said that any attack would be met with "unrelenting force".
Those divisions are playing out against an internal debate among administration officials about the gravity of the Iranian threat. If the Trump administration wanted to do that, they would've stayed in the JCPOA. Something similar is happening today.
"Iran is no threat to anybody in Iraq or elsewhere, and Iran is not preparing for any attacks anywhere".
A deputy head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said short-range Iranian missiles could reach US warships in the Gulf, and the United States could not afford a new war, the semi-official news agency Fars reported on Friday.
But he has also made clear that he will protect US interests in the region, one official said.
The front-page editorial in the ArabNews, published in English, said it's "clear that (the US) sanctions are not sending the right message" and that "they must be hit hard", without elaborating on specific targets.
The letter cited a Reuters story from April 17 that reported how the administration's annual report to Congress assessing compliance with arms control agreements provoked a dispute with US intelligence agencies and some State Department officials.
Iran responded by declaring US Centcom a "terror" organisation. In response, Jonathan Chait wrote a column headlined "Conservative Columnist Urges War With Iran Over 2 Percent Oil Price Hike", even though Rothman wrote military action "would be counterproductive to the [Trump] strategy they are now pursuing, which consists of imposing broad economic sanctions on Iran to harden grassroots resistance to the regime in the hopes of catalyzing a revolution".
Trump was likely referencing a New York Times story from earlier this week that reported on an administration plan to send 120,000 troops to handle Iran, which the White House denied.
In light of hawkish proposals by National Security Advisor John Bolton and risky maneuvers by the United States military near the Iranian border, Trump's level of involvement in the decision making process has been debated.