Vice President JD Vance reportedly told people privately that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been wrong about nearly every aspect of the Iran war. The reported dispute highlights divisions inside the Trump administration and may also offer a glimpse of how Vance is positioning himself ahead of a possible 2028 presidential run.
The disagreement, reported by Axios on Nov. 4, emerged after Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress in the midterm elections. Vance publicly blamed the war for the losses and urged President Donald Trump to seek a negotiated end to the conflict instead of launching more strikes.
“The reason we lost is the war,” Vance wrote on X on Wednesday.
Nathan Sachs, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, said the tension with Netanyahu could give Vance room to distinguish himself from the administration without directly criticizing Trump. Vance can oppose the war’s direction, Sachs said, while keeping his criticism focused on the Israeli prime minister.
Vance has reportedly been among senior officials pressing Trump to negotiate, warning that an unpopular conflict could cost Republicans their hold on Congress. Netanyahu, by contrast, had urged Trump to resume strikes against Iran before the elections. Trump ultimately held back, despite having endorsed Netanyahu’s reelection campaign in Israel.
Sachs said Vance’s concern appeared to center partly on the possibility of trying to remove Iran’s government after Netanyahu presented Trump with a regime-change plan. Some Israeli opposition figures are skeptical that airstrikes could achieve that goal, Sachs noted; they could instead strengthen the Iranian government.
Vance has also declined to endorse Netanyahu’s reelection and criticized Israeli officials who opposed Trump’s attempts to end the war. The uncertainty surrounding Israel’s election could complicate matters further. If Netanyahu leaves office, Vance may have to decide whether to maintain a confrontational approach toward a new Israeli leader or argue that Netanyahu himself was the main obstacle to a different path.
About six in ten voters said U.S. military action against Iran was the wrong decision, according to the AP Voter Poll. Sachs said the timing of the reports was notable, as political positioning for the next U.S. presidential campaign was already beginning. Vance, he argued, was breaking with Trump’s policy by criticizing Netanyahu rather than Trump directly.
At the same time, Vance has taken a prominent role in efforts to end the conflict, including contact with senior Iranian officials. Last month, he reportedly sent a letter through Qatari intermediaries to Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, proposing a return to peace talks.
According to Axios, the letter said negotiations to prevent further U.S. strikes would need to address Iran’s nuclear program. A U.S. official said Trump supported the outreach. Rezaei later confirmed receiving the letter but said he had not replied.
Sachs suggested Vance may have been acting on Trump’s behalf, saying the president had tasked him with exploring an exit from the war after its first weeks. Sachs also pointed to Vance’s role in an earlier memorandum of understanding with Iran, which he said offered Tehran more than the administration now considers acceptable.
The White House is weighing whether to resume large-scale strikes, continue economic and naval pressure, or pursue a settlement. Reuters reported Thursday that Iran had sent the United States a formal nuclear proposal through Qatar, making further talks conditional on Washington addressing seven demands.
The central question, Sachs said, is whether the two countries can reach agreement on basic issues, including freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and ending hostilities.
For Vance, the politics are complicated: he reportedly opposed the war, but he is also vice president in the administration that launched it. Sachs described that as a difficult balance to manage with voters.
