AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Paul Wood, a British author, places J.D. Vance in a very complex political dilemma. He is now caught between a war with Iran that he fundamentally disagreed with and peace negotiations for which he has taken almost complete responsibility.
Wood, in an article in the iPaper, believes that Vance's biggest failure so far has been his inability to convince Donald Trump not to enter the war. His second failure is his inability to end the war. A dilemma that could have direct consequences for Vance's political future and his ambition to reach the White House in the 2028 election.
The article refers to a meeting that Trump held before the start of the war with his inner circle of advisors in the White House Situation Room. Vance is said to have expressed his view at that meeting that starting a war with Iran was a bad idea, but at the same time assured Trump that if he decided to start the war, he would support him.
Two days later, the bombing of Iran began, and the U.S. Vice President was subsequently placed in a position from which he could not easily distance himself. Especially since he was present in the decision-making circle and was not merely a responsible official kept out of the file and then forced to defend the war decision. A situation similar to what happened to Hubert Humphrey during the Vietnam War.
Vance's Personal Test
Wood notes that Vance had built part of his political image on opposition to foreign wars. Even his support for Trump in 2023 was expressed in an article with a clear title: Trump's best foreign policy is to start no wars.
But according to this author, the Trump who came to power this time was not the same Trump Vance had expected. Vance found himself the Vice President of a president who had entered a new war, at a time when his political current had always advocated avoiding foreign military interventions.
Since the start of the U.S. war against Iran, peace negotiations have become a personal test for Vance. He has taken responsibility for the diplomatic file, and his success in reaching an agreement with Iran is directly tied to his political future. Because Vance's ambition to succeed Trump in 2028 requires an agreement that can be presented to the American public as a result of successful war, not concession or defeat.
According to this article, negotiations are based on a memorandum of understanding that Vance brought back from Pakistan in June. While Tehran appears to have such a tough position that it will not give him an easy agreement.
Vance himself has acknowledged the difficulty of negotiating with the Iranians, saying that any final agreement will be messy.
According to the author, negotiations have become more complicated due to the Iranians' perception that Trump's repeated threats to escalate military action may be merely a tool for pressure. Especially since Trump has backed down several times from his threats to expand the scope of the war against Iran.
Tehran Is in No Hurry
The author believes that Tehran is trying to prolong negotiations and use the issue of the Strait of Hormuz as a main leverage before entering the discussion of Iran's nuclear program.
This occurs at a time when Trump faces a serious economic and political risk. Because the continuation of the war against Iran could raise fuel prices to levels that would be difficult for the U.S. government to tolerate as the November midterm elections approach.
However, according to the author, Tehran is in no hurry to end the war and may even see its interests in prolonging negotiations until after the U.S. midterm elections.
Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister has also announced that an agreement on the Strait of Hormuz must be reached before any serious talks on Iran's nuclear program. According to him, this process may take between two and four months, while the initial timeline for negotiations was only 30 days.
Wood believes that the Iranians may be trying to repeat the experience of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, turning the war into a political burden that exhausts the U.S. President and weakens his political future.
Here the article reaches the core of the common dilemma for Trump and Vance: a war they cannot end with a clear victory, and a peace they may not be able to present to the public as a victory. Especially since Vance needs a peace agreement that protects his political future and justifies his earlier position in supporting Trump.
This situation has become more sensitive with the emergence of possible competition for succession to Trump within the Republican Party, especially the potential rivalry between Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also temporarily serves as National Security Advisor.
In the Most Sensitive Position
The author presents a more dangerous scenario for Trump and Vance, involving the continuation of the war against Iran, rising fuel prices, and Democrats regaining control of both the House and Senate.
In such conditions, Trump may once again face an impeachment process. This makes the Vice President's position more important than ever, especially since Vance will be in a position to become one of the most important players in any political crisis threatening the Trump administration.
Thus, the article presents a picture of Vance in the most sensitive political position. He is part of the Trump administration and responsible for defending its decisions, but at the same time pursues his own presidential ambitions and knows that his success or failure in the Iran file could determine his image in the Republican Party for years to come.
In this equation, merely ending the war against Iran is not enough. Rather, the war must end in a way that allows Vance and Trump to present it to the American public as a successful outcome, and this is precisely what makes Vance's mission so difficult.
**************
End/ 345E
