Israel launched a new wave of air attacks on Tehran on Sunday and Iran responded with more missile barrages, a day after the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Switzerland represents US interests in Iran — a long‑standing role now coming under scrutiny as tensions escalate in the Middle East.
Decades of hostility between Iran and the United States have culminated in open conflict. For Switzerland, the situation carries particular weight: since 1980 it has acted as Washington’s protecting power in Tehran.
“The crucial point is that this communication channel between Washington and Tehran must remain open,” says Monika Schmutz Kirgöz, head of the Middle East and North Africa Division at the Swiss foreign ministry.
Protecting power channel remains active
Switzerland has represented the interests of the US in Iran since 1980 as part of a protecting power mandate. The mandate dates back to the hostage crisis of 1979: after the Islamic Republic was proclaimed in Iran, students occupied the US embassy in Tehran and took staff hostage. The US subsequently broke off all diplomatic relations with Iran.
A year later, Switzerland offered to represent the interests of the US in Iran. Since 1980, it has thus acted as a “messenger” between Washington and Tehran, taking on diplomatic and consular tasks. The corresponding “channel”, which represents the interests of the US, is active, the ministry says. It is available to both sides and in both directions.
Protecting power mandates form part of Switzerland’s foreign and peace policy tradition. They ensure a minimum level of contact between states that have severed diplomatic or consular ties. But criticism of Switzerland’s role in Iran is growing.
>>Read more about Switzerland’s special connection to Iran:
More
More
Iranian protests test Switzerland’s special status with Iran
Protecting power mandate superfluous
Centre Party parliamentarian Gerhard Pfister, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, argues the mandate has outlived its usefulness. “For years I have believed that these so‑called ‘good offices’, which Switzerland claims for itself, are in fact very bad services to the Iranian people,” he says. With the outbreak of war, he adds, the mandate has become superfluous.
Foreign policy expert Franziska Roth, a Social Democratic senator, shares that view. “The Federal Council should relinquish the protecting power mandate. It has been the main reason for Switzerland’s soft‑pedalling towards the brutal mullah regime,” she says.
Switzerland refrained from adopting certain European Union sanctions for this reason, Roth argues. “The appeasement policy we have pursued until now achieves nothing.”
In mid-February, Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis (right) met his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in Geneva.
Keystone / Cyril Zingaro
Diverging views within the Centre Party
Pfister’s Centre Party colleague, Elisabeth Schneider‑Schneiter, disagrees sharply. “Switzerland should now fulfil its special role and contribute to de‑escalation as a protecting power,” says the Swiss parliamentarian.
In her view, the Federal Council should offer International Geneva as a venue for negotiations between the warring parties.
The US and Iran had indeed held indirect talks in Geneva until recently — albeit without results, as the eruption of war on Saturday demonstrated. “We certainly must not give up now,” Schneider‑Schneiter says.
>>Cyrus Schayegh, professor of international history at the Geneva Graduate Institute, told SWI swissinfo.ch some time ago that Switzerland’s protective mandate in Iran has lost much of its influence.
More
More
‘Less impressive and less important’: Switzerland’s role as an intermediary in Iran
Wait for things to ‘cool down’
Swiss People’s Party parliamentarian Roland Rino Büchel calls for patience. “We do not have an important role now. When things cool down again, when the conflict is drawing to an end, then we can be a platform again,” he says.
Büchel believes the mandate is often overstated. In practice, he argues, it is mostly about providing consular services such as issuing visas. “It is not a major diplomatic role that we have been playing there for decades,” he says.
Closing communication channels — as some politicians have demanded — would be “bad and pointless”, Büchel adds.
Adapted from German with AI/sb
