Vance, Rubio strike different tone on Iran and Israel

MANAMA – US President Donald Trump’s administration has pushed hard to present a united front on the Iran war, but statements by his vice-president and secretary of state have at times diverged over the past week, especially on the subject of Israel.

Vice-President J.D. Vance, speaking at the White House last week, lashed out against Israeli critics of the preliminary US-Iran deal. He suggested that Israeli bombings of civilian infrastructure in Beirut – intended to weaken Hezbollah, which has been attacking Israel – were undermining US-led peace efforts.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who travelled through the Gulf this week, defended Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon, repeatedly describing its actions as a justified response to Hezbollah attacks. Pressed on Vance’s criticism, Rubio deflected before recounting an assault by the Lebanon-based militia on an Israeli checkpoint earlier in the week.

The contrast suggests that, even as the administration has emphasised unity, differing worldviews are at times rising to the surface – a challenge for a White House whose political coalition is deeply divided on foreign policy matters. It also offers an early glimpse of the Republican Party’s future, with Rubio and Vance both seen as potential 2028 presidential contenders.

Both Vance and Rubio were dispatched on high-profile trips abroad over the past week to defend the preliminary peace accord inked between Washington and Tehran on June 17.

Vance traveled to Switzerland for a round of talks with Iranian officials. Speaking to reporters on June 21, he struck a decidedly optimistic tone on the state of talks with Iran. He has also said repeatedly in recent weeks that Gulf states could fund Iran’s reconstruction.

He has also frequently mentioned the possibility of a new, more cooperative relationship between Iran and the US, revealing in an interview released on June 25 that the US had invited an Iranian intelligence official to serve as a deconfliction liaison with the Pentagon in Qatar.

Rubio, meanwhile, visited the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain to reassure allies – some of whom are concerned that the interim US-Iran accord is too generous to Tehran – that their interests will be protected.

On June 23, Rubio said he would not ask Gulf allies during his trip to fund Iran’s reconstruction, saying such a possibility was “far down the road”. During a meeting with regional officials on June 25, he emphasised that any deal has to be ironclad as it relates to US interests and those of its allies.

“While we want a deal, we don’t want a deal at any price,” he said.

The White House vigorously denied any divergence between the two officials.

“There is one camp – President Trump’s camp – and the entire administration is fully behind the President’s efforts to ensure Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon,” said White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott called the idea that there were any foreign policy divisions between Rubio and Vance a “tired and fake” narrative, saying, “The entire administration is 100 per cent in lockstep behind President Trump.”

A separate State Department spokesperson further argued there was no divergence between the two officials on Lebanon, saying the administration’s goal was to restore Lebanese government sovereignty over its entire territory.

Some analysts and commentators are unconvinced.

Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think-tank, said Rubio and Vance held clearly different views. “At their core they represent different strains,” he said.

The two officials come from radically different foreign policy backgrounds. Before taking office in 2025, Vance frequently criticised foreign wars as a waste of lives and money. Rubio made a name for himself as a “hawk” in the Senate, where he pushed for a more confrontational stance toward Iran, Russia and Cuba.

Both men are seen as potential successors to Trump and are the product of powerful, competing constituencies within the Republican Party.

On one side are “neo-conservatives” whose adherents are more likely to advocate for foreign intervention. On the other are Republican voters and policy professionals who argue that many recent foreign wars were costly and reckless.

Only 52 per cent of Republicans believe the current conflict has put the US in a stronger position, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on June 22, suggesting a party divided between those camps.

Both Rubio and Vance have nevertheless supported all of Trump’s major foreign policy decisions, including his capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, his attack on Iran in February and his subsequent decision to pursue peace. Both have even used similar talking points in recent weeks, saying they will judge Tehran’s actions, not words, as negotiations unfold.

Asked by a reporter on June 25 to what degree his views on Iran differed from those of Vance, Rubio said they both took their lead from Trump.

“Everyone here is aligned behind the President,” he said. REUTERS