Once Trump started bombing Iran this year, everybody knew that he had put his legacy on the line. If he accomplished his goals, he would go down in history as the man who forever changed the Middle East for the better: first with the amazing Abraham Accords, and in his second term by defanging the evil Islamic Regime, which has created chaos for half a century.
The history books have yet to be written, and what they might possibly say is very much in doubt. The die has not been cast because we cannot predict with any accuracy whether Trump will pull a rabbit out of the hat and defang the Iranian regime completely, or allow Tehran to snatch victory out of the jaws of what appeared a near-certain defeat.
On the one hand, Trump has more luck in one pinky finger than any 100 people have in their entire lifetimes, because he makes his own luck. On the other hand, Trump once wisely said that Iran had never won a war or lost a negotiation.
Trump seems to understand that everything is still up in the air regarding success or failure. He said as much, and how he said it should remind us that another man in the Trump administration has at least as much on the line personally as does Trump.
Trump: "If [the Iran deal] works out, I'm going to take the credit; if it doesn't work out, I'm blaming [Vance]." pic.twitter.com/XSXlOj76SC
— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 17, 2026
Trump is basically right about JD Vance's opportunity and peril. Trump's legacy is on the line, although he will still make the history books with a lot of wins on the balance sheet. JD's future in politics, though, rests almost entirely on whether his massive bet that you can cut a deal with Iran works out for him—and us, of course.
Rubio lets Vance take the fall as Iran deal questions mount@mawilner https://t.co/9yCpGX1uij
— Mark Z. Barabak (@markzbarabak) June 18, 2026
The ultimate buck for deciding whether to follow the Vance path or the Rubio path stopped with Donald Trump, but nobody doubts he was choosing between the paths outlined by those two men, along with their allies in the administration. Vance, most prominently, was the advocate for ending the bombing, for starting the 78-day "two-week" ceasefire (14 Days to Slow the Curve, maybe?), and for being the main negotiator with Iran to reach the Memorandum of Understanding.
He is the guy who Iran just left on the tarmac when they stood us up in Switzerland today. It is his baby, and if he pulls it off in the end, he will be first in line to become the Republican nominee in 2028. Vance had been falling in the polls as Marco Rubio's star has risen.
As Vance goes on his book tour, his chance of being the 2028 GOP nominee has been tumbling.
— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) June 16, 2026
Rubio's chances have gone up like a rocket.
Quinnipiac shows that Rubio is better liked with the GOP base, as Vance has faded.
Vance has a -7 pt net favorable overall in Ohio. pic.twitter.com/PeFMp2t3eM
I wouldn't suggest that Vance has chosen to hitch his wagon to peace with Iran as part of a strategy to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2028. Not only is that overly cynical, but it implies that Vance wouldn't take this exact same path whether he wanted the job or not. Vance is without question doing exactly what he thinks is right.
It's just as clear that Marco Rubio thinks this path is bat-guano crazy. Not that he is making any noises to suggest that. He loyally stands behind the president, trying to put on a brave face, although to anybody who can read body language, he looks like he swallowed broken glass after taking a beating in the ring with Mike Tyson at his prime.
In fact, as everybody has noticed, Marco Rubio is making no noises at all, despite his being the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, roles that one would expect to make him at least one of the top spokesmen for Trump on the most important national security and foreign policy issues Trump has ever faced.
If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all.
Clearly, there was a battle royal within the administration, and Vance won the internal battle.
Vance has not only been an advocate for his position, but remarkably critical of people who see the issue differently—more like Marco than he.
Despite mounting skepticism, Vance has embraced his role in ending a war that a powerful faction of Trump’s base aggressively opposed from the start.
“I think there are some people who just want the bombing to continue, regardless of whether it accomplishes anything for Americans,” Vance told CBS News on Wednesday.
“I do think there are people,” he added, “who sometimes confuse the ends with the means.”
Because the preliminary Iran deal leaves key details unresolved, further negotiations virtually ensure the agreement remains in flux through the election season — potentially thrusting the talks into the center of the presidential primary campaign.
“Given the distance between the parties on the core nuclear issues, as well as the Trump administration’s poor track record with coercive diplomacy, I fully expect the 60-day window for talks to be extended, as the [memorandum of understanding] text permits, taking this issue to the heart of the midterms and beyond,” said Reid Pauly, a professor of nuclear security and policy at Brown University.
“There will be a lot of incentive in the administration,” Pauly added, “to distance oneself from this fiasco.”
As a guest on Megyn Kelly’s podcast this week, Vance acknowledged the political realities of Trump’s base splintering over the Iran war, noting that a coalition of isolationists — as well as those advocating what he called a more “aggressive” foreign policy — had together swept Trump back into office.
The war may be breaking that coalition apart, he said.
“We have a constituency right now that is saying, we’re going to send boots on the ground — they want Donald Trump to send hundreds of thousands of ground troops into Iran,” Vance told the former Fox News host.
“Those are Republicans,” Kelly said.
“We need people to be pushing back from inside the tent,” Vance replied.
Vance has, at times, spoken of his opponents within the Republican coalition in terms that seem reminiscent of Tucker Carlson's arguments, including his swipes at Israel. Implicitly, those criticisms extend to Rubio as well, since it's clear that Rubio vehemently disagrees with Vance's take, and likely advocated against the original ceasefire along with Secretary of War Hegseth.
The Vance and Rubio disagreements, and perhaps even growing hostility, represent two different understandings of how American interests should be defined, and American power should be exercised, and there is a real-world test underway to see which approach is superior.
The American front in the Iran war is between two heavyweight opponents fighting a political Battle of Waterloo.
We will soon see if Vance is Napoleon and Rubio Wellington, or vice versa. Who gets the Republican Party presidential nomination is the prize they are fighting for.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy HotAir's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member