Vance Weighs Direct Talks With Iran as Rubio and Miller Back Keeping the Pressure On

Vice President JD Vance is considering a direct meeting with an Iranian hardliner in a push to end the war, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, citing unnamed U.S. and Middle East officials, according to The Times of Israel ^[1].

Vance has taken the lead role in the administration's diplomatic efforts, eclipsing White House envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, according to the report ^[1]. The coverage we reviewed did not include a public response from the White House, and no time or place for any meeting has been reported ^[1].

A debate inside the team

The same report described differences over strategy at the top of the administration. President Trump has been privately criticizing the memorandum of understanding with Iran that Vance helped negotiate in June, calling it a mistake that allowed Iran to recover and bring in oil revenue, The Times of Israel reported ^[1]. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller favor keeping the blockade on Iran in place until Tehran gives in, according to the report ^[1].

Vance has been open about the political stakes. Last month he pointed to ending the Iran war as one of four areas a pollster identified as important to voters, along with the cost of living, America First policies and the U.S.-Israel relationship, Newsweek reported ^[4].

Tehran's answer

Iran signaled that it is in no hurry. Mohsen Rezaei, identified by The Times of Israel as secretary-general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said Wednesday that there are no plans to meet Vance ^[1].

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran's parliament and Tehran's lead negotiator, told Al Jazeera that the United States must "make and announce" a decision on Iran's latest proposal ^[2]. Iran had rejected a U.S. proposal to transfer its stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium to a third country, Al Jazeera reported ^[2].

Tensions remain high. Israel has ordered its military to step up preparations for a possible attack on Iran, and Tehran warned it would expand the war beyond the region if it is attacked, Al Jazeera reported ^[2].

Israel and American aid

A separate thread is also drawing attention in Washington and Jerusalem. Caretaker Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said Wednesday that Israel will phase out U.S. military aid gradually, describing it as a joint move with Trump, The Times of Israel reported ^[3]. Trump has said the aid would end this year, while Netanyahu has spoken of a reduction over the next decade ^[3]. Earlier this week, Rubio said Israel is wealthy enough to buy American weapons and could get off aid by the end of the year, according to The Times of Israel ^[3]. The current 10-year agreement, worth $3.8 billion a year, runs through September 2028 ^[3].

Related Trump Taps HUD's Civil Rights Enforcer to Carry On Harmeet Dhillon's Work at the Justice Department

Why it matters

Two tracks at once is not confusion; it can be leverage. A blockade that squeezes Tehran's oil revenue and a vice president ready to sit down at the table can be two halves of the same strategy, as long as the line stays clear: no deal that leaves Iran on the road to a nuclear weapon, and no deal that rewards a hostile regime for its aggression.

The disagreement reported inside the administration is the kind of debate a president should hear before he decides. Rubio's caution reflects hard lessons about agreements that let Tehran rebuild. Vance's push reflects what he says voters want most: an end to the war ^[4]. The final call belongs to President Trump, and the measure of any outcome will be whether it protects American troops, American allies and American taxpayers.

What comes next

Watch for any confirmation of a meeting, which officials have not announced ^[1]. Watch also for Washington's formal answer to Iran's latest proposal, which Ghalibaf says Tehran is waiting on ^[2], for whether the blockade stays in place while the two sides talk ^[1], and for the next round in the debate over how quickly Israel moves off American military aid ^[3].