These are unprecedented times in politics, and they include unprecedented decisions on the part of political leaders – none more so than what J.D. Vance decided to do this week, in the midst of a book tour where no one talked about his book.
The vice president of the United States, the odds-on favorite to be the next presidential nominee of the Republican Party, decided to unequivocally bet his reputation and his future electoral prospects on an extremely vague and uncertain deal with Iran — one which if it comes to fruition (a doubtful matter itself) would result in tens and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars flowing to the regime of the new Ayatollah.
From the perspective of Washington Republicans, this is a move by a vice president who wants a political win. Having felt his skeptical views about the Iran conflict and other foreign policy actions largely ignored by President Trump, here was an opportunity for narrative success: a potential “forever war”, unpopular particularly with working-class Independent and younger Republican voters, brought to an end in a sweeping act of diplomatic acumen by the young veteran of past conflict.
The story is a compelling one. Instead of his potential presidential competitor, Marco Rubio, solving this problem, it would be Vance who stepped in to lower energy prices, relieve the pain on American working families, and also bail out nervous Republicans on Capitol Hill fighting to keep their jobs and their majority. And if you disagree, you favor — as he put it to Megyn Kelly — “[E]ndless conflict. They want this to go on until every bomb has been dropped or until every Iranian is dead.”
There is not enough straw in the world to build a man this size. But as for the deal, the devil is in the details, and they are not minor details: Immediate ability for the Iranians to move oil and profit from it; a vaporware rebuilding fund, sure to be filled with corrupt interests and repurposed for the usual items on the Ayatollah’s grocery list; unenforceable demands that rely on a pinkie swear — sorry, “gentleman’s agreement” — from the religious zealots who rule the country.
On Thursday, the vice president answered a question from The Daily Wire in the White House briefing room with a casual list of things that could bring resumed military action against Iran for violations of the memorandum of understanding:
It’s just going to be a holistic approach where we look at their behavior. Are they funding terrorism? Are they leading attacks on other people? Are they trying to get centrifuges to redevelop their nuclear weapons program? There are all these questions that we’re going to ask about whether they’ve actually changed their behavior. Do they allow the inspectors in, as they have said they would do, or do they refuse to allow those inspectors in? A whole host of things we’re going to see, working towards a very successful resolution of this process. But again, it takes two to tango. And what the President is just saying is that we maintain economic, diplomatic, and military leverage that nobody else in the world has. So if the Iranians want to change, great — we’re going to help them. If they don’t change, we still got all the cards.
The problems with this answer are obvious and numerous. If you have all the cards, why the capitulation? The Iranian regime has never, including during the latest operations, stopped funding terrorism through its proxies. Leading attacks on other people is part of their daily routine. The situation in Lebanon is impossible to guarantee. And as for future commitments to inspectors and changed behavior, the Ayatollah has no term limit — he can just wait a year or two and return to the regime’s behavior — and what then? Would a future President Gavin Newsom resume military action? Would a President J.D. Vance?
As an advocate for this new Iran deal, the vice president deployed his usual Yale Law skill: turn the situation into a false choice between boots on the ground, American casualties, and forever war, or this deal. What is the alternative? You may recognize the same rhetorical tics from an equally eloquent and unlikely Oval Office decisionmaker. At least this one has the virtue of coming after a near-decimation of the Iranian ballistic missile arsenal — but if that’s all this was about, why do they stand to reap all the financial benefits?
Vance clearly believes in this deal. His former Senate colleagues who supported Operation Epic Fury don’t understand the nature of it and resent the lack of any read-in on the details. Behind the scenes, several admit they view the deal and the follow-on negotiation as laughable, a punt that is unlikely to actually come to fruition, scoffing at the idea of a $300 billion fund and assuming that bombs will be falling again in months.
One Senator confided that they believed Vance was nuking his future political prospects by tying himself so closely to a major foreign policy endeavor that looks, for all appearances, like a doomed effort at “trust, but only verify if we have to.” It is a perspective echoed by others — but of course, they are making assumptions based on facts not yet in evidence, and for some, it’s a silver lining to a bad resolution.
Most vice presidents don’t have to stake their future political prospects on a major decision. But Vance’s political career was so brief prior to joining the 2024 ticket that this essentially amounts to the biggest thing he’s ever owned. How this deal turns out could end up being one of the biggest questions for him on the debate stage in two years’ time. That places an enormous amount of faith in the Iranians.
The vice president is clear about where he’s placed his trust. We’ll see how much that’s worth.
.png)
.png)
