Jono Maryono
Standing before reporters at the White House on Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed what had been unfolding through backchannels for days: Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are playing lead roles in the administration’s diplomatic push for a ceasefire with Iran. "We have an active, willing participant on the other side," Trump stated, describing the proposal on the table as "a significant step," though he quickly qualified that "it’s not good enough." This public acknowledgment marks a notable shift, placing Vance, who had previously maintained a more studied distance from "Operation Epic Fury"—the military campaign launched over five weeks ago—at the forefront of last-ditch efforts. These endeavors, facilitated by Pakistan, aim to pull the United States and Iran back from the precipice of what could be the most devastating escalation of their ongoing conflict.
The heightened tensions come after President Trump threatened over the weekend to bomb Iran’s power and energy facilities if Tehran did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global energy supplies, by early Wednesday, Iran time. In a series of escalating public pronouncements, Trump launched a profanity-laced tirade against Iran on his Truth Social platform on Monday. By Tuesday, approximately 12 hours before his self-imposed deadline, his rhetoric reached apocalyptic levels. "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will," Trump posted, further intensifying regional anxieties.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps responded to Trump’s threats by warning that all its restraints against targets would be lifted if the U.S. escalated militarily. This warning came as Iran’s Kharg Island, its primary oil export hub, was reportedly bombed earlier in the day, and Iran retaliated by striking the Jubail petrochemical facility in Saudi Arabia. Amidst these exchanges of attacks and threats, sources close to the mediation efforts indicated that attempts to broker an agreement on a Pakistani proposal for a two-stage halt to the war were ongoing. The success of these efforts, and whether they can overcome the increasingly vitriolic rhetoric to bring the two nations closer to a peace deal, will be a critical test of Vance’s influence with President Trump and whether his involvement can nudge Iran towards dialogue, according to these sources.
Vance’s Emergence as a Key Diplomatic Player
The night before President Trump’s public statement, officials familiar with the mediation efforts in Pakistan confirmed to Al Jazeera that Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, had engaged in direct discussions with Vice President Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. This call was a component of an intensive mediation initiative that Pakistan has spearheaded since late March. Islamabad had previously hosted foreign ministers from Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt on March 29 for a coordinated effort to end the hostilities, following an earlier alignment of approaches among these regional powers in Riyadh on March 19.
President Trump had earlier, on March 26, at a cabinet meeting, formally acknowledged his Vice President’s role in the diplomatic effort, tasking him with briefing Iranian officials. According to Pakistani media, citing a senior civilian official involved in the talks, a U.S. delegation led by Vance had twice been prepared to travel to Islamabad for direct discussions with their Iranian counterparts. However, both planned visits were canceled at the last moment. Tehran reportedly requested additional time for internal deliberations and ultimately declined to participate in those specific engagements. Despite these setbacks, by the preceding weekend, the mediation effort had yielded tangible progress. Iran confirmed receiving a ceasefire proposal, which opened the door for broader negotiations. However, Tehran eventually rejected the plan, deeming it "illogical."
The Nuances of Tehran’s Perception of U.S. Negotiators
Iran’s apparent preference for engaging with Vice President Vance appears to predate the current conflict. On February 26, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, both real estate magnates and key figures in the Trump administration, concluded the third round of indirect nuclear negotiations with Iran’s Abbas Araghchi in Geneva. Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi, who mediated these talks, expressed optimism, telling U.S.-based outlet CBS News the following day that "a peace deal is within our reach." He highlighted "significant, important and unprecedented progress," including what he described as a commitment from Iran not to stockpile enriched uranium. "The big picture is that a deal is in our hands," Al Busaidi had stated.
However, a mere two days later, U.S. and Israeli forces launched a series of strikes on multiple Iranian sites, initiating the current war. The initial wave of attacks resulted in the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, among other senior Iranian figures. From Tehran’s perspective, this constituted a second betrayal, following earlier U.S. engagement in negotiations in June before Israel and then the U.S. bombed Iran during a 12-day conflict.
Javad Heiran-Nia, director of the Persian Gulf Studies Group in Tehran, explained Iran’s initial assessment. He noted that Iran had viewed Witkoff as a moderate within Trump’s inner circle and accepted his role on that basis. When Kushner joined the talks before the February round, Tehran interpreted it as a signal of seriousness due to his close proximity to President Trump. "Iran’s assessment was that the U.S. was serious about the negotiations," Heiran-Nia told Al Jazeera. However, the U.S. decision to join Israel in launching the war, even while talks were ongoing, fundamentally altered this perception. "There is a feeling among Iranian officials that the pre-war negotiations were essentially aimed at buying time to complete military positioning," Heiran-Nia added.
Subsequently, Western media reported that Tehran refused to engage with either Kushner or Witkoff after the Geneva talks. Citing regional sources, CNN reported that Iran viewed Vance as more sympathetic to ending the conflict than other U.S. officials. Heiran-Nia further elaborated that internal dynamics within Iran have also shaped this preference. Following the death of Supreme Leader Khamenei, various factions within the Iranian political system have been vying for influence. While the war has bolstered the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, President Masoud Pezeshkian’s government has seen its authority over strategic decisions significantly curtailed. The acceptance of negotiations, including Pakistan’s mediation efforts, has, according to Heiran-Nia, emanated from higher levels of the Iranian system, though the format remains politically sensitive.
Diplomatic Momentum and Persistent Rhetoric
As of Tuesday evening in Islamabad, government officials described the ongoing negotiations as being in an advanced stage. The emerging framework reportedly envisions a sequenced process, beginning with an agreement to establish confidence-building measures, followed by a formal ceasefire contingent on the successful implementation of these initial steps. The specific details of these confidence-building measures have not been publicly disclosed, and Pakistani officials have indicated they are not pre-empting decisions that ultimately rest with Washington and Tehran.
Iran’s Ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam, signaled progress on Tuesday through a post on X (formerly Twitter). He stated that Islamabad’s "positive and productive endeavours in goodwill and good offices to stop the war" were approaching a "critical, sensitive stage." This was the most explicit public indication to date from an Iranian official that Pakistan’s mediation efforts had moved beyond preliminary discussions.
Despite this apparent diplomatic momentum, President Trump continued to escalate his rhetoric. On Tuesday, he posted on Truth Social, "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again," before suggesting that "complete and total regime change" may already be underway in Iran. He added, "47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end." This juxtaposition of escalating threats with ongoing diplomatic overtures highlights the complex and precarious nature of the current situation.
Broader Implications: Politics, Perception, and 2028 Aspirations
Iran’s preference for engaging with Vice President Vance extends beyond mere personality dynamics; it is also rooted in his publicly articulated stance on foreign intervention. As a senator, Vance argued in a 2023 Wall Street Journal opinion piece that President Trump’s success in office was partly attributable to his avoidance of new wars. In 2024, he cautioned that a conflict with Iran would not serve U.S. interests and would represent a "huge distraction of resources." Days before the February 28 strikes, he told The Washington Post, "I think we all prefer the diplomatic option. But it really depends on what the Iranians do and what they say."
Heiran-Nia articulated that Tehran’s perception of Vance is shaped by two key factors. Firstly, he was initially perceived as being opposed to the war, even if he later aligned with the administration’s position. Secondly, and crucially, unlike Witkoff and Kushner, Vance was not involved in the negotiations that preceded the military strikes. "From a symbolic standpoint, he is more justifiable for Iran to use in justifying the process to public opinion," Heiran-Nia stated.
Furthermore, Vance’s conduct during the conflict has reinforced the perception in Iran that the Vice President is carefully positioning himself for a potential future presidential bid. Widely considered a frontrunner for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination, Vance faces the delicate task of balancing loyalty to President Trump with a degree of skepticism towards prolonged Middle East conflicts. Analysts observe that both Vance and Secretary of State Rubio face distinct political risks. Rubio’s support for the war could become a significant liability if the conflict drags on or concludes unfavorably. Vance, conversely, risks being perceived as disloyal if he diverges too significantly from President Trump’s publicly stated positions.
The strategy of positioning himself as a figure who actively worked to de-escalate and end the war offers Vance a potential pathway to navigate this inherent tension. This strategic calculation has not gone unnoticed in Tehran. It has "conveyed the impression inside Iran that the vice president is adopting a cautious approach to potentially play a presidential role in the future," Heiran-Nia noted. "While operating within Trump’s system, he tries to maintain an independent approach." This nuanced understanding of Vance’s political calculus appears to be a significant factor in Iran’s willingness to engage with him as a primary U.S. interlocutor. The coming days will be critical in determining whether these complex diplomatic maneuvers, coupled with President Trump’s volatile rhetoric, can steer the region away from further catastrophe.
