Washington—As negotiations stall between the U.S. and Iran, the White House’s policy on the Iran War has recently become characterized by the relative influence of Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on President Donald Trump’s inner circle.
Vance advocates a more diplomacy-based approach grounded in the America First movement’s aversion to foreign entanglements, and Rubio takes a different stance in line with his positions on Cuba and Venezuela. Both men have Trump’s ear, but the president tends to take his own counsel, as he reportedly told The New York Times that his “own morality” serves as the thing that could potentially limit his global powers.
“The ultimate direction of policy will depend less on who wins an internal ideological debate and more on where Trump himself lands,” said John Calabrese, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “Trump has historically valued flexibility and may continue to allow competing views around him, but he appears to value his own ‘instincts’ and judgment above all else and all others.”
The divergence between the Vance and Rubio camps, while officially denied by the Trump administration, has become more pronounced in recent weeks. Appearing as a guest on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast on July 15, Vance was openly critical of what he cast as the hawks’ role in the collapse of the June 17 Memorandum of Understanding, which the vice president was charged with overseeing. In slamming the terms of that deal as being too lenient on Iran, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said Trump had been getting “poor advice.”
“There are people who are super hawkish in the American system who have attacked, and in some ways, frankly tried to derail the deal,” Vance said, without naming them. “If you want to have a hawkish policy towards Iran,” the vice president added, “the idea that Donald Trump has betrayed you because he’s also trying to negotiate to get a good outcome for the American people is crazy.”
According to CNN’s reporting, Vance cautioned Trump against renewed military strikes at a July 24 Oval Office meeting.
Speaking to reporters at a conference for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Manila, Philippines, on July 23, Rubio responded to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s call for ‘an eye for an eye’ regarding the conflict. “President Trump’s policy is a head for an eye,” Rubio said. “They will pay a very heavy price for the things they’re doing.”
The Secretary’s posture has the support of other high-profile officials within the Trump administration like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Michael Waltz. Vance’s position, meanwhile, has support among some notable figures in Congress such as Sen. Rand Paul.
When it comes to their views on what America ought to prioritize domestically and internationally, Vance and Rubio come from very different worlds. The Vice President subscribes to an “America First” position highlighting American economic and security interests.
Vance came from an Ohio family that suffered from and frequently witnessed many of the symptoms of America’s poor and middle classes, including drug addiction and domestic violence, people whose livelihoods and opportunities often suffered from the promotion of globalization and American adventurism abroad. His bestselling memoir, ‘Hillbilly Elegy,’ testifies to this.
For Rubio, the story is much different. Coming from a Cuban family who immigrated to the U.S. just before the Cuban Revolution, Rubio grew up surrounded by the heavily Cuban exile community in Miami. It was in this milieu that Rubio developed a harsh anti-communist stance in response to Castro’s rule. This merged with a hawkish internationalism and the belief in America’s role to promote democracy and freedom abroad, and turned Rubio into one of the most prominent proponents of the idea of his generation.
“Rubio appears better positioned, given that as Secretary of State, he controls the main foreign-policy machinery,” Calabrese said. “That said, Vance is still an important voice because of his proximity to President Trump and his influence among the administration’s more restraint-oriented faction.”
Vance and Rubio’s differences on the war are playing out against the backdrop of the not-so-distant 2028 presidential elections, with polls placing the two as the runaway frontrunners for the Republican nomination, though Rubio has said he would back the vice president if he chooses to run.
The best outcome for both Vance and Rubio would be a clear U.S. triumph. “Donald Trump is in an escalation trap,” said Ross Harrison, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and author of ‘Decoding Iran’s Foreign Policy.’ “If he escalates further, he can inflict more damage on the Iranians, but to no real strategic effect, and possibly to a negative strategic effect in that he loses control of the war. If he de-escalates, then he’s perceived as weak.”
In that context, Harrison said, the divergence between Vance and Rubio may not matter much for the outcome of the conflict.
“Yes, that general split is there, much more isolationist on the part of Vance, and much more hawkish on the part of Rubio,” he said. “But I’m not sure how meaningful that split is at this very moment.”
