SAEDNEWS: CNN has published an extensive report tracing the dramatic transformation of J.D. Vance—from a vocal critic of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East and the assassination of Qassem Soleimani in 2020, to a central figure behind recent U.S.-Israeli military coordination against Iran from inside the White House.
According to Saed News, CNN has published an extensive report tracing the evolution of Vice President J.D. Vance’s foreign policy stance on Iran, revealing a stark shift from his 2020 opposition to military escalation to his current role in directing Israeli-led attacks from the White House Situation Room.
Back in January 2020, when then-President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, Vance—then a venture capitalist and author—expressed serious reservations. Speaking to Tucker Carlson on Fox News, he warned of another costly entanglement in the Middle East, arguing that the focus should remain on containing the rise of China.
Five years later, Vance is not only the Vice President but also a chief architect behind a targeted strike on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, he stated: “We are not at war with Iran. We are at war with Iran’s nuclear program. This won’t be long or drawn-out.”
This repositioning reflects both a strategic narrative embraced by the administration—that limited strikes are necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and Vance’s growing influence as a centrist bridge between GOP realists and interventionists. While Trump retains the final say, sources close to the administration say Vance has earned a reputation for delivering candid counsel, a quality that’s solidified his role in national security decision-making.
Senator Eric Schmitt, a close ally, affirmed the alignment between Trump and Vance, noting: “There’s no daylight between the president’s goals and J.D.’s worldview.”
Vance’s ascent has also been marked by key legislative victories, including his pivotal vote on Trump’s massive tax and spending cuts and behind-the-scenes negotiations with Republican holdouts.
Despite his realist credentials, Vance has long argued that military force is justified to prevent Iran from going nuclear. According to allies, his support for the latest strikes does not represent ideological drift but a response to emerging threats. “He’s not an isolationist. He’s always been one of the toughest voices on Iran,” one confidante said.
The airstrikes appear to have achieved limited tactical success. Iran responded with symbolic missile launches at a U.S. base in Qatar, while Trump pressed for a ceasefire between Iran and Israel—hoping to extend that momentum to broader negotiations with Hamas.
Still, with Iran halting cooperation with the IAEA and Netanyahu hinting at further military actions, experts warn that the White House may soon face renewed pressure for escalation. Justin Logan of the Cato Institute remarked, “This isn’t over. Netanyahu has no intention of letting this issue rest.”
The strikes also revealed Republican fractures. Vance, often at odds with the party’s neoconservative wing, attempted to assuage concerns on X (formerly Twitter), asserting that the administration’s goal is to degrade Iran’s nuclear program—not to pursue regime change.
Even critics concede the coherence of what Vance calls the “Trump Doctrine”: define America’s core interest, attempt diplomacy, act decisively if necessary, and withdraw quickly to avoid a quagmire. “If you’re going to hit Iran,” he told Sean Hannity, “hit them hard. That’s what Trump did with Soleimani. People feared war—but we got peace.”
While he maintains Israel’s right to self-defense, Vance continues to insist that American and Israeli interests do not always align. “We shouldn’t go to war for someone else’s agenda,” he told podcaster Tim Dillon, adding that war with Iran would be a massive drain on U.S. resources.
At the Munich Security Conference, Vance stunned European allies with a fiery speech, arguing that their real threat lies within—not in Russia or China. His remarks on a private Signal chat opposing strikes on Houthi targets further demonstrated his unwillingness to commit U.S. resources for others’ security.
Emma Ashford of the Stimson Center noted, “Vance is shaping a post-Trump Republican foreign policy—tough, restrained, but still Trumpian.” His ability to focus Trump’s attention on NATO burden-sharing marks a significant shift from the former president’s first term.
Yet, internal divisions remain. On the eve of the Iran strikes, Vance’s outreach on X and in private was crucial in calming Trump-world figures wary of Middle East entanglements. “The difference,” Vance told Meet the Press, “is that now we have a president who understands how to achieve national security goals—without stumbling into endless wars.”
Senator Schmitt praised the pair’s restraint. “They did what had to be done—without plunging us into another foreign war. You don’t see that from either party these days.”
