Trump blames – Vice President JD Vance has thrown himself into promoting a peace agreement meant to end months of fighting with Iran—while GOP hawks accuse the administration of giving Tehran too much. A planned in-person signing in Switzerland fell apart at the last minute,
When the vice president’s flight was canceled late Thursday evening, the message traveled faster than the aircraft ever could: the peace effort with Iran was in trouble long before anyone could sit down to sign anything in Switzerland.
The formal. in-person summit planned for Friday was derailed at the last minute. with Vice President JD Vance canceling his flight to Switzerland on Thursday. The scramble landed in a charged political atmosphere. GOP hawks have protested that the administration did not share specific text immediately. and after seeing it. many criticized the accord as overly generous to Iran.
One Republican senator called it “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.” At the same time, President Donald Trump and Vance have offered conflicting statements about what happens next—especially around what would occur if Iran violates the agreement.
For Vance, the risk is personal as well as political. The vice president is a known war skeptic. yet this week he has pushed the deal aggressively across more than a dozen television and podcast appearances. describing it as a major win while criticism has mounted that it may not deliver the administration’s core goals right away.
“Somebody has told JD Vance that a bad deal is better than no deal,” said a former senior Trump administration official. “And, clearly, nobody else wants to wear the jacket on this when it goes south.”
Trump, meanwhile, has tied the vice president to the stakes in blunt terms. During a Wednesday press conference, Trump—half joking—acknowledged the bind.
“If it works out, I’m going to take the credit,” Trump said of the peace agreement. “If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD.”
Vance’s pitch has been framed around trying, even if Iran does not change its behavior immediately. In a Thursday briefing, he said: “People say the Iranians will never change their behavior. Well, maybe that’s true, and if so they don’t get any of the benefits of the bargain. But isn’t it worth trying?”.
He has also tried to keep his political calculus separate from his role in the diplomacy. Vance insisted he is not yet contemplating a 2028 run, and he has characterized his involvement in the talks as aimed at reaching an acceptable truce between the two nations.
Still, his defenders and critics describe the same basic reality: the vice president is stepping forward at exactly the moment when the deal could fracture.
Curt Mills. a Vance ally and executive director of The American Conservative. put it this way: “There is a risk if the deal blows up. if the deal is a massive failure. if the deal is extremely unpopular. then Vance is the fall guy.” Mills added that the alternative was not necessarily safer: “But the default was a disaster. JD is not going to be president if the administration is this unpopular.”.
The tension around Vance’s involvement did not begin with this week’s media push. Vance has sought to play a key role in peacemaking since before the war began—at times even prompting concern among colleagues because it could intersect with his future ambitions.
On February 27, Vance met with Oman’s foreign minister in an effort to stave off war with Iran. The next day, Trump wiped out Oman’s leadership in a barrage of strikes.
After that, Vance spent the war’s early stages backchanneling toward an eventual negotiated settlement. He then pushed for a role in the first face-to-face talks with the Iranian regime. with White House officials agreeing that his presence would help ensure Tehran sent high-level officials of its own.
But the first attempt stumbled. Some White House officials worried that allowing Vance to lead the U.S. delegation to Pakistan would be a political misstep if talks fell through—an outcome that came to pass, with a wave of unflattering coverage afterward.
“He didn’t think it through,” a senior White House official said of the Islamabad summit. “He put himself at the front of the line, and then The New York Times headline is, ‘Vance loses.’”
Even after that, Vance’s approach did not appear to soften. He had planned to travel back to Pakistan for a second round of talks before they were called off. Since then, officials said, he has been closely involved in the weeks of deliberations that led to this week’s memorandum of understanding.
Those internal efforts have now turned into an effort to sell a deal—at the exact time critics are focused on the terms.
Vance made clear to Trump in recent days that he wanted to take the lead in touting the agreement. and a source briefed on internal conversations said Trump encouraged him to take a central role. The administration also faced a practical limitation: after the agreement. few other senior officials involved in the talks were available. since most were overseas with Trump at the G7 summit.
Vance celebrated the deal in a multiday media blitz. portraying it as a “big win for the American people” that handed the U.S. greater leverage over Iran. Shortly after the pact was announced. he told Fox News: “If the Iranians comply with this deal. it is going to fundamentally transform the Middle East.”.
But with each successive day, criticism has grown.
Marc Thiessen, a conservative commentator who had advocated war with Iran, dubbed it the “Vance peace deal” and denounced the potential creation of a $300 billion fund for Iran in any final truce as “utterly disastrous.”
Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans have slammed the agreement for lifting key sanctions on Iran without forcing concrete concessions from the regime regarding its nuclear ambitions. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana attacked the framework after text was released Wednesday. writing on X that “Reagan is rolling over in his grave.” Cassidy then continued with a longer argument that tied the deal’s sanctions lift and the war’s human cost together.
“Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive. Now. 13 Americans are dead. families have paid billions at the pump. sanctions will be lifted. and the bombing has stopped. ” Cassidy said. “This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”.
More Republican lawmakers followed. Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker decried the pact as “completely out of step with the president’s goals.” Wicker also said the $300 billion fund for Iran laid out in the text made the widely criticized “payoff” under the Obama administration’s 2015 Iran deal “look like a pittance by comparison.”.
Inside the administration, some insist Vance is not being set up to fail. Sources in and around the White House insisted that Vance wasn’t being hung out to dry trying to sell a doomed agreement, and that Trump believed it set the U.S. on a winning path.
A Trumpworld source dismissed Vance’s most vocal critics as largely irrelevant to the White House’s view of his performance or political future. arguing they have little influence within the administration as officials reviewed early polling that showed enthusiasm among voters for the peace agreement. The source said: “There’s no real downside risk to the president and vice president for giving the peace process a chance. In fact, they are getting credit for it.”.
Still, even among some supporters, dismay lingers over the pace of Vance’s commitment to the deal—especially if it collapses before the public has time to see whether it can last.
“If I was his political adviser, I would tell him to sit back and let this play out,” one Republican operative close to the White House told CNN.
Others noticed that Rubio, the secretary of state and a potential 2028 rival to Vance, has receded from the spotlight. Rubio stood behind Trump at a press conference this week that focused on the Iran agreement, but remained stone-faced and silent throughout the hour.
“One former Trump official said of the Iran fallout: ‘Rubio is being put in a very strong position here.’”
Some Vance allies say the story could still turn in his favor—if he survives the criticism and keeps shaping the messaging. They argue that by standing at the front of the diplomacy. he could strengthen his foreign policy credentials ahead of 2028 while offering a path out of a war few Americans support.
“He’s a steady hand on the messaging tiller, and it’s a great opportunity for him to feature his input on foreign affairs,” said one person close to the White House. “I’m certain it’s a risk he considered, and that gives me more confidence in this because he decided it’s a risk worth taking.”
Yet even some in Vance’s own orbit are casting doubt on whether the agreement can endure.
As he prepared to negotiate the next phase of an accord he has called a milestone. Vance suggested in an interview on the “Megyn Kelly Show” that if the agreement didn’t work out. the U.S. could still rely on a practical outcome: the Strait of Hormuz would be open. and “we can get on with our lives as a country.”.
Trump, though, pointed in a different direction.
“If it doesn’t get done in 60 days, that’s all right,” Trump said on Wednesday. “We go back to bombing.”
JD Vance Donald Trump Iran peace agreement Switzerland summit GOP hawks sanctions Strait of Hormuz Marco Rubio 2028 ambitions bombing