British writer Paul Wood argues that US Vice President JD Vance now faces an exceptionally difficult political dilemma, caught between a war with Iran that he reportedly never supported in the first place and peace negotiations for which he has become almost entirely responsible.
Writing in The i Paper, Wood says Vance’s biggest failure so far was his inability to persuade President Donald Trump not to go to war. His second failure, he argues, has been his inability to bring that war to an end. Both could carry direct consequences for Vance’s political future and his ambition to reach the White House in the 2028 election.
The article points to a meeting Trump held with his inner circle in the White House Situation Room before the war began. Vance reportedly told the president that going to war with Iran was a “bad idea”, while also assuring Trump that he would support him if he decided to proceed.
Two days later, the bombing began.
Vance subsequently found himself in a position where distancing himself from the decision became extremely difficult. He had been inside the circle where the decision was made, rather than being a senior official forced to defend a policy from which he had been excluded, as was the case with Vice President Hubert Humphrey during the Vietnam War.
A Personal Test for Vance
Wood notes that Vance built part of his political identity on opposition to foreign wars. His support for Trump in 2023 was expressed in an article carrying the explicit headline: “Trump’s Best Foreign Policy? Not Starting Any Wars.”
But the Trump who returned to power was not, according to Wood, the Trump Vance had expected.
Instead, Vance found himself serving as vice president under a president waging a new war, despite the political movement to which both belonged having promoted the principle of avoiding foreign military interventions.
Since the war began, peace negotiations have become a personal test for Vance.
He has assumed responsibility for the diplomatic track, meaning that his ability to reach an agreement with Iran is now directly connected to his political future. His ambition to succeed Trump in 2028 requires a deal that can be presented to the American public as a successful outcome of the war rather than as a concession or defeat.
According to the article, negotiations are based on a memorandum of understanding Vance brought back from Pakistan in June, while Tehran appears too resilient to offer him an easy agreement.
Vance himself has acknowledged the difficulty of dealing with Iranian negotiators and said any final agreement would be “messy”.
Wood argues that the negotiating process is further complicated by Tehran’s awareness that Trump’s repeated threats of military escalation may amount primarily to pressure tactics, particularly after the president retreated more than once from threats to expand the war.
Tehran Appears in No Hurry
Wood believes Tehran is seeking to prolong the negotiations and use the Strait of Hormuz as a central bargaining card before moving to discussions over Iran’s nuclear programme.
At the same time, Trump faces a significant economic and political risk. A prolonged war could drive fuel prices to levels that the administration would struggle to absorb politically as the November midterm elections approach.
Tehran, however, does not appear to be in a hurry to end the war.
According to the writer, Iran may have an interest in extending negotiations beyond the midterm elections.
Iran’s deputy foreign minister has indicated that an agreement over the Strait of Hormuz must come before any serious discussion of the nuclear programme, and that the process could take between two and four months, compared with an original timetable of no more than 30 days.
Wood suggests the Iranians may be seeking to recreate the political dynamic that confronted former US President Jimmy Carter by turning the war into a burden that drains the American president and damages his political future.
This brings the argument to the central dilemma facing both Trump and Vance: a war they may be unable to end with a clear victory, and a peace settlement that may be equally difficult to present to the public as a victory.
For Vance in particular, a peace agreement must protect his own political future while also justifying his earlier support for Trump.
The situation is made more sensitive by the emerging competition to succeed Trump within the Republican Party, particularly between Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also serving as acting national security adviser.
In One of the Most Politically Dangerous Positions
Wood raises an even more dangerous scenario for Trump and Vance: the war continues, fuel prices rise, and Democrats regain control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
In such circumstances, Trump could face new impeachment proceedings, making the office of vice president more important than ever.
Vance would then find himself positioned to become one of the most important political actors in any crisis threatening the Trump administration.
The article therefore portrays Vance as a politician occupying one of the most precarious positions in Washington. He is part of the Trump administration and responsible for defending its decisions, while simultaneously harbouring presidential ambitions of his own.
He also knows that success or failure over Iran could shape his standing inside the Republican Party for years to come.
In this equation, simply ending the war would not be enough.
It would have to end in a way that Trump and Vance could present to the American public as a successful outcome. That is precisely what makes Vance’s task so difficult.
