In the week after American voters handed Congress to the opposition, the Vice President found himself tracing a fault line through his own government: a war with Iran that many now regard as a mistake, and a reported private judgment that Israel's prime minister was wrong about nearly all of it. Vance has been urging a negotiated end to the conflict while his name remains bound to an administration he cannot fully distance himself from. How he holds that tension, and whether the President chooses strikes or settlement, will shape not only the war but the political future of a man already reach
Vance Privately Calls Netanyahu 'Wrong on Everything' as Iran War Splits Trump Circle
The reason we lost is the war.
Mark
Why does a private remark about Netanyahu matter so much?
Mimi
Because it surfaced the day after the midterm losses, and Vance followed it publicly with a post blaming the war for the defeat. It shows a split over Iran strategy inside the administration.
Luke
Worth noting the "wrong on everything" line comes through Axios reporting of a private remark. Vance's own public words are the X post.
Mark
What was he objecting to specifically?
Mimi
Analyst Natan Sachs says the main concern seemed to be regime change. Netanyahu gave Trump a plan, and Vance appears wary of overthrowing Iran's government.
Luke
That's Sachs's reading, not something Vance has laid out himself. "Appeared" is carrying a lot there.
Mark
Is this really about 2028?
Mimi
Sachs says so. He argues Vance can distance himself from a battered administration by criticizing Netanyahu, not Trump.
Luke
That's one analyst's interpretation of motive. Nobody on record confirms Vance is running, or that this is strategy.
Mark
But Vance also reached out to Iran.
Mimi
He sent a letter via Qatar to Mohsen Rezaei proposing talks. A U.S. official said Trump backed it, and Rezaei confirmed receiving it but hadn't replied.
Luke
And the idea that Vance acts for Trump is Sachs's suspicion. What's unresolved is whether Trump resumes strikes, and how Netanyahu's election fares.
O Pulso
- Vance reportedly told associates that Netanyahu was "wrong on everything" about the Iran war, a private rebuke that quickly became public.
- The day after Republicans lost both chambers of Congress, Vance blamed the war itself, pitting him against the administration he serves.
- Netanyahu pressed Trump to resume strikes before the midterms, while Vance pushed for a negotiated end and warned that the war was costing the party.
- Tehran's formal nuclear proposal, routed through Qatar, now hangs over a White House weighing strikes, sustained pressure, or settlement.
- Israel's uncertain election could force Vance to decide whether to keep confronting a new government or claim a different path is open.
In the week after American voters handed Congress to the opposition, the Vice President found himself tracing a fault line through his own government: a war with Iran that many now regard as a mistake, and a reported private judgment that Israel's prime minister was wrong about nearly all of it. Vance has been urging a negotiated end to the conflict while his name remains bound to an administration he cannot fully distance himself from. How he holds that tension, and whether the President chooses strikes or settlement, will shape not only the war but the political future of a man already reaching toward a presidential contest that analysts say began before the votes were even tallied.
On Wednesday, the day after Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress, Vice President JD Vance posted a blunt line on X: "The reason we lost is the war." He meant the conflict with Iran, and his words came one day after Axios reported that he had privately called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "wrong on everything" about it.
Vance has spent recent weeks urging President Trump toward a negotiated settlement rather than renewed strikes. He has led senior officials who warned that an unpopular war could cost Republicans Congress, and an AP Voter Poll suggests that worry has weight: roughly six in 10 voters said military action against Iran was the wrong decision. Netanyahu pushed in the opposite direction, asking Trump to resume strikes before the midterms. Trump held off, having already endorsed Netanyahu's re-election bid in Israel.
Vance had signaled distance before. He declined to endorse Netanyahu's campaign and criticized Israeli officials who opposed Trump's efforts to end the war. Analyst Natan Sachs of the Middle East Institute reads the friction as useful to him: it lets Vance step away from a battered administration and take a different position without attacking the president, and Netanyahu is an easy target because the disagreement is real. Sachs said the 2028 race effectively began at midnight Wednesday.
Vance is also a central figure in trying to end the fighting. Last month he sent a letter through Qatari intermediaries to Mohsen Rezaei, proposing renewed talks that must address Iran's nuclear program. A U.S. official said Trump backed the outreach, and Rezaei confirmed receiving it without replying.
The ground is still shifting. Israel's election could remove Netanyahu, forcing Vance to decide whether to stay confrontational with a successor or say the trouble was all Netanyahu. Meanwhile the White House weighs major strikes, continued pressure, or a settlement, and Tehran has sent a formal nuclear proposal, conditioned on Washington answering seven demands. For Vance, the balance is delicate, and what Trump chooses will determine how long it can hold.
On Wednesday, the day after Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress, Vice President JD Vance posted a blunt sentence on X: "The reason we lost is the war." The war he meant is the U.S. conflict with Iran, and the post landed one day after Axios reported that Vance had privately described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "wrong on everything" about it.
The Axios report, published Nov. 4, comes as disagreements over Iran strategy are showing inside the Trump administration. Vance has been urging President Trump to pursue a negotiated settlement rather than renewed military strikes. According to reports, he has also led a group of senior officials who pressed Trump to negotiate an end to the fighting, warning that an unpopular war could cost Republicans control of Congress. The AP Voter Poll gives some weight to that worry: roughly six in 10 voters said U.S. military action against Iran was the wrong decision.
Netanyahu pushed the other way. He urged Trump to resume strikes on Iran before the midterms, but Trump held off, after endorsing Netanyahu for re-election in Israel. Natan Sachs, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Fox News Digital that Vance's central worry appeared to be the prospect of toppling Iran's government, after Netanyahu presented Trump with a plan for regime change. Sachs noted that many opposition leaders in Israel are skeptical that an air campaign can bring about regime change, and said such a campaign could have the opposite effect: "You may strengthen the regime."
Vance had already signaled distance from Netanyahu. Fox News Digital previously reported that he declined to endorse Netanyahu's re-election campaign and criticized Israeli government officials who opposed Trump's efforts to end the war.
Sachs reads the friction as politically useful to Vance. He said it lets Vance create space from an administration that just took a heavy electoral beating, and stake out a position different from Trump's without attacking Trump. Netanyahu, he said, is an easy target because the differences are real and his role was important, so Vance can criticize the war and the Israeli leader without saying a bad word about the president. Sachs put it in starker terms: the next presidential campaign began around midnight Wednesday, and Vance is positioning himself for 2028.
Yet Vance has also been a central figure in trying to end the conflict. Last month he sent a letter through Qatari intermediaries to Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, proposing renewed peace talks. According to Axios, the letter said any negotiations to head off further U.S. strikes must address Iran's nuclear program. A U.S. official said Trump backed the outreach, and Rezaei later confirmed receiving the letter but said he had not replied. Sachs suspects Vance was acting on Trump's behalf, noting that Trump appointed him to work out an exit strategy after the war settled down following its first few weeks. Sachs also pointed to Vance's role in an earlier memorandum of understanding with Iran, which he said gave the Iranians much more than the administration now considers reasonable.
The Israeli election adds another variable. Netanyahu's political future is uncertain, and if he is no longer leader, Sachs said, Vance will have to decide whether to stay confrontational with a new government or say it was all Netanyahu and a different path is now open.
The White House is weighing three options: resuming major strikes, maintaining economic and naval pressure, or pursuing a negotiated settlement. On Thursday, Reuters reported that Tehran sent the United States a formal nuclear proposal through Qatari intermediaries, making further talks contingent on Washington addressing its seven demands. Sachs said the real question is whether the two sides can agree on fundamentals, starting with freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and an end to hostilities.
For Vance, the bind is plain. As Sachs described it, he appears to have opposed a war waged by the administration he serves in, a "very difficult balancing act" electorally. What Trump decides on strikes or a settlement will shape how far that balance can hold.
Citações Notáveis
The reason we lost is the war.— JD Vance, on X
He is breaking with the policy of President Trump, although he's doing so by criticizing Netanyahu, never Trump.— Natan Sachs, Middle East Institute
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em Fox News ↗
Politics & Governance