Although Vance, who has long questioned US interventions abroad, has publicly defended Trump’s operation in Iran, White House officials revealed that the vice president had voiced his opposition ahead of the attack. This confirmed months of speculation that Vance is far more cautious about military action than Trump, he writes Politico.
Vance was “skeptical,” “concerned about success” and “simply opposed” to going to war with Iran, a senior Trump official said in a text message. The official was guaranteed anonymity so he could speak openly about the vice president’s views.
Another senior Trump official said Vance’s role “is to provide the president and the administration with all the views of what could happen from many different angles, and he does that. But once the decision is made, he fully supports it.”
Vance’s well-known skepticism about US military involvement, shaped by his experience serving as a Marine in Iraq, along with his more reserved tone about the operation’s successes, has fueled speculation of a rift between the president and vice president.
This is not the first time that Vance’s views on US military action appear to diverge from Trump’s. When the US bombed the Houthis at the beginning of last year, Vance wrote in an allegedly secret conversation on Signal with other administration officials that he “considered that move a mistake.” This adds to a long-standing series of public statements documenting why it is not in the US’s interest to go to war with Iran.
The latest example of the political rift between the two comes as Trump mentioned both Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio – who is publicly more aligned with the president on Iran – as possible candidates for the 2028 election.
Even Trump himself mentioned the divide on Monday, but he didn’t seem to mind. Vance “was, I would say, philosophically a little different than me. I think he may have been less enthusiastic about entering the conflict, but he was still pretty enthusiastic,” Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago, reports Index.hr.
Vance did not clarify this “philosophical” difference, and his associates did not want to go into detail about his consideration of military action.
“The vice president is the target of constant leaks from all over the place from people who are trying to absorb their own views on him,” Vance spokeswoman Taylor Van Kirk said.
“As a result, countless conflicting reports about his views have been published, which just goes to show that the mainstream media has no idea what they’re talking about.” She added: “The vice president, a proud member of the president’s national security team, keeps his advice to the president to himself.”
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said: “Attempts to create a rift between President Trump and Vice President Vance are completely misguided. The president listens to the many opinions of his talented national security team and ultimately makes decisions based on what is best for our country and national security. Vice President Vance is a tremendous asset to the president and the entire administration.”
A person familiar with Vance’s thinking, who was granted anonymity, said the vice president saw the need to strike quickly and that a delay could cause American casualties due to possible leaks of US military plans.
During the first year of Trump’s second term, Vance was often the voice of skeptics of military action. After the U.S. bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities in June and after the U.S. arrest of former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, Vance defended those moves on social media, but at the same time vindicated Americans who are “rightly concerned about foreign interference,” as he wrote after the June bombing.
Since the attacks began, Vance has publicly supported the president’s military goals, but without repeating his triumphalist language, such as Trump’s declaration on Wednesday that they had “won” the war.
“Trump is not going to drag the United States into a protracted conflict with no end in sight and no clear goal,” Vance told Fox News on March 2, arguing that the “simple” goal of destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities would prevent the US from getting bogged down like in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Although he now vocally supports the strikes, Vance has a history of expressing skepticism about American interventions abroad, particularly in Iran. Two days before Trump launched the attacks, he told the Washington Post that he considered himself “a skeptic of foreign military intervention” and that “we all prefer the diplomatic option.” Two years earlier, as a vice presidential candidate, he said on Tim Dillon’s podcast that “our interest, I think, is very much in not going to war with Iran” and that it would be “a huge distraction of resources” and “a massive cost to our country.”
(Vijesti.ba)
