9 hours ago
4
As US President Donald Trump faced backlash, especially from pro-Israel politicians and advocates, for signing the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Iran, his deputy, JD Vance, went on a media blitz defending the agreement to end the months-long war.
Vice President Vance hailed “good progress”, adding that a “very good foundation” has been set for a successful final deal with Iran. The two sides have 60 days to conclude a final deal.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 items- list 1 of 4Vance’s warning to Israel signals a new phase in US-Israeli relations
- list 2 of 4Rubio issues Hormuz toll warning as he wraps up Gulf visit
- list 3 of 4Pragmatic choice: Israel’s war backfires as Gulf backs US-Iran deal
- list 4 of 4The US-Iran MoU: A mirage of an agreement
Vance, who led the talks with Iran in Switzerland, used tough language against Israel over the latter’s public opposition to the MoU.
“You’re a country of nine million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have,” he said, referring to Israeli tactics of using military force to solve its issues.
Unlike Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio avoided openly criticising Israel, America’s closest ally, and instead railed against the Iranian government.
Last week, he travelled to the Middle East to reassure Washington’s Gulf allies, who were attacked by Tehran during the course of the war.
“International waterways [Strait of Hormuz] do not belong to any nation-state,” Rubio declared in Bahrain on June 25.
Days later, the United States and Iran were engaged in three days of tit-for-tat strikes – the first since the MoU was signed on June 17 – over the control of the Strait of Hormuz, a global energy chokepoint.
The two sides are expected to hold technical talks to defuse the tensions over the strait through which a fifth of global energy supplies passes.
Amid this, seemingly diverging comments from Vance and Rubio over the past week have sparked speculation on whether there are differences within the Trump administration.
The White House vigorously denied any divergence between the two officials.
In this explainer, we unpack what Vance and Rubio have said, where there are differences, and why it matters.
Is the Trump administration split over the war in Iran?
Both Vance and Rubio were dispatched on high-profile trips abroad over the past week to defend the MoU inked between Washington and Tehran.
Their statements to the media during these trips have slightly diverged from each other.
On Israel
Speaking at the White House last week, Vance suggested that Israeli bombings of civilian infrastructure in Beirut were undermining US-led peace efforts.
Even President Trump has criticised Israel for targeting civilian buildings. “You don’t have to knock down an apartment house every time you’re looking for somebody, because there are a lot of people in those apartment houses, and they’re not all Hezbollah,” he said at the G7 summit in France.
More than 4,000 people have been killed and 1.2 million people displaced in Israeli attacks on Lebanon since March 2, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health.
Vance has also made public statements asking Israel to stop criticising the Trump administration. “Donald J Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time,” Vance told reporters at the White House earlier this month.
“If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”
Vance comments have come as Israel has faced global isolation due to its genocide in Gaza and war on Iran that triggered an energy crisis worldwide.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who travelled through the Gulf this week, defended Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon, repeatedly describing its actions as a justified response to Hezbollah attacks.
Pressed on Vance’s criticism, Rubio deflected before recounting an assault by the Lebanon-based militia on an Israeli checkpoint earlier in the week.
On the Gulf states
Vance travelled to Switzerland for a round of talks with Iranian officials. Speaking to reporters on Sunday, he struck a decidedly optimistic tone on the state of talks with Iran. He has also suggested that regional Arab countries could contribute to Iran’s reconstruction fund.
Rubio, meanwhile, visited the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain to reassure allies – some of whom are concerned that the interim US-Iran accord is too generous to Tehran – that their interests will be protected.
On June 23, Rubio said he would not ask Gulf allies during his trip to fund Iran’s reconstruction, saying such a possibility was “far down the road”. During a meeting with regional officials two days later, he emphasised that any deal has to be ironclad as it relates to US interests and those of its allies.
“While we want a deal, we don’t want a deal at any price,” he said.
On Iran
Vance has frequently mentioned the possibility of a new, more cooperative relationship between Iran and the US. The two rivals can “work together to promote peace and prosperity”, he said.
Vance also backed away from past US pledges to destroy Iran’s ballistic weapons capabilities.
“You can’t tell a country, whether Israel or Iran, they’re not allowed to have any self-defence,” he said.
Rubio, on the other hand, has taken a tougher line on Iran. On June 24, he said that Iran will not be permitted to charge tolls or fees for vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
How has the White House responded to speculation about the split?
The White House has denied that there is a divide.
“There is one camp – President Trump’s camp – and the entire administration is fully behind the president’s efforts to ensure Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon,” said White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly.
State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott called the idea that there were any foreign policy divisions between Rubio and Vance a “tired and fake” narrative, saying, “The entire administration is 100 percent in lockstep behind President Trump.”
The Reuters news agency reported on Friday that a separate State Department spokesperson further argued there was no divergence between the two officials on Lebanon, saying the administration’s goal was to restore Lebanese government sovereignty over its entire territory.
Rubio himself has denied that his views differed from Vance’s.
Asked by a reporter on Thursday to what degree his views on Iran differed from those of Vance, Rubio said they both took their lead from Trump.
“Everyone here is aligned behind the president,” he said.
Why does this matter?
Vance and Rubio are the two most senior diplomatic figures in the Trump administration. The two have historically represented diverging opinions on foreign policy.
Before taking office last year, Vance frequently criticised foreign wars as a waste of lives and money. Rubio made a name for himself as a “hawk” in the Senate, where he pushed for a more confrontational stance towards Iran, Russia and Cuba.
Both men are seen as potential successors to Trump and are the product of powerful, competing constituencies within the Republican Party.
On one side are “neoconservatives” whose adherents are more likely to advocate for foreign intervention. On the other are Republican voters and policy professionals who argue that many recent foreign wars were costly and reckless.
