Tehran, Iran – Iranian policymakers are now considering the implications of Vice President JD Vance withdrawing from the Iran issue to focus on domestic issues, which analysts say could increase the risks of conflict between the two sides.
Vance served as the United States’ chief negotiator in negotiations with Iran, but was asked by U.S. President Donald Trump to focus on alleged Democratic “corruption,” according to a Trump article on Truth Social on Thursday. He added that a deal with Iran was no longer a priority for the government.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The vice president is seen by Tehran as one of the most pragmatic figures in the Trump administration since the United States and Israel launched their surprise war against Iran on February 28.
Nasser Hadian, a professor of international relations at the University of Tehran, said that by assigning Vance to the alleged domestic corruption case, Trump was primarily signaling a showdown with Democrats after their resounding victories against the ruling Republican Party in the midterm elections.
But the move could also serve Israel, which is reportedly eager to see Trump launch further strikes against Iran, after Vance blamed the Republicans’ humiliating midterm defeat on the war.
“Another signal is being sent to Iran, essentially saying that reaching a deal now is not a priority and that the person known for having a relatively softer stance on Iran has been redirected to other issues,” Hadian said.
The negotiator
Vance reportedly favored a negotiated resolution to the war, due to its growing economic costs to American citizens and their opposition to the war suggested in opinion polls.
The vice president was supported by Trump envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff when he negotiated the now-defunct memorandum of understanding with Iran in June, which briefly halted the war and resumed shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Rubio, meanwhile, called Iranian authorities “crazy” for their demands to end the war. But he has also recognized the cost of all-out war and seeks to win by increasing economic pressure and isolating all Iranians.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who faced an impeachment vote over his role in the war, and Central Command chief Brad Cooper are said to favor further military action against Iran.
Vance wrote a letter to Iran’s security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, in late October, as regional mediators stepped up efforts to bridge gaps between the two sides. Rezaei initially characterized the missive’s tone as positive, but last week called allegations of progress and a possible direct meeting with Vance “fake news about imaginary talks.”
“You lost the war and the election. Vance has conceded, Rubio is heading out, Hegseth is about to be fired, and the CENTCOM commander is now a podcaster!” he wrote about X at the time.
“With or without Vance”
Publicized contacts are underway between the two parties, but no progress is expected. Tehran demands seven conditions and a clear sequencing of concessions to end the war, but this seems unacceptable in the eyes of the United States.
Mohammad Saleh Sedghian, director of the Arab Center for Iranian Studies, noted that Trump had repeatedly highlighted alleged divisions within the Iranian negotiating team. But he added that Iranian officials were also questioning the reliability of another potential deal with Washington.
“Even if you can imagine Mr. Rezaei sitting down with Mr. Vance and reaching an agreement? What guarantee is there that Trump will implement it?” he told Al Jazeera.
The climate of mistrust between the two sides also complicates the prospects of an agreement, he added. This means the ongoing US siege on Iran and harsh sanctions will continue, which could cost Iran more than a relatively shorter military conflict with Washington, he added.
“The blockade and disruption significantly increase the costs for the Iranian people. The current state, without war or negotiated resolution, is very dangerous,” Sedghian said.
Iran’s reformist Shargh newspaper claimed this week that Vance’s role regarding Iran was unresolved rather than definitively over, but also said the conflict could further escalate.
The conservative daily Farhikhtegan disputed Vance’s portrayal as truly anti-war, arguing that diplomacy, military force and economic pressure ultimately serve a common purpose for the United States in trying to coerce Iran into accepting its terms.
For now, the two sides continue to fight for control of the Strait of Hormuz, with retaliatory attacks on maritime and military installations.
On Friday and Saturday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iran’s regular army separately claimed responsibility for several new incidents of ships hitting naval mines or being hit by projectiles after attempting “unauthorized” routes in the critical waterway.
The latest weekly UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) report on Friday noted eight incidents in and around the strait, mainly on the southern route, near Oman.
The UKMTO also recorded 139 outbound and 169 inbound transits across the strait during the week, around 65% lower than pre-conflict levels.
Hadian believes that Iranian decision-makers will not tolerate the current situation indefinitely.
“The authorities will attack either their warships, their ships, or their military bases,” he added. “The stronger the blockade becomes, particularly through maritime pressure and disruption of land borders and air transport, war becomes more likely. »
But Trump’s sidelining of Vance on the Iranian issue will not radically change the current situation, Hadian said, since Washington believes that its tactic of economic pressure on Tehran may force it to make concessions.
“The United States would have done this with or without Vance, and I think they will continue to do it,” he said.
Gn headline
