On June 15, U.S. Vice President Vance, in a series of intensive interviews with multiple media outlets, claimed that those opposing a deal with Iran desire conflict to continue until "the last Iranian falls."

He pointed out, "If you look at the proposals they put forward, what they want is endless conflict. They wish for warfare to persist indefinitely—until the last bomb is dropped, or until the last Iranian dies."

He emphasized in particular that the goal of the U.S. President is entirely opposite. The President stated that advancing negotiations aims to end Iran's nuclear program and strip it of its ability to threaten neighboring countries and project military power abroad.

Vance’s remarks essentially represent a continuation of the U.S. strategy toward Iran: pursuing diplomacy alongside deterrence. While signaling openness to peace, he made no secret of his warning: if Iran refuses to make a long-term commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, the U.S. will continue to exert pressure—particularly economic—and even hinted that Trump would have no hesitation in "resuming bombing." This "carrot and stick" approach aims to leverage the 60-day negotiation window to compel Iran to make substantial concessions on the most difficult issues, such as the disposal of enriched uranium and acceptance of international inspections.

Currently, there is clear division within the Trump administration regarding Iran policy (for example, Vance advocates strategic retrenchment while Secretary Rubio insists on a hardline stance), and U.S.-Israel relations have also frayed due to the agreement. Vance’s high-profile statement at this juncture serves to unify the White House narrative and establish himself as the chief advocate for the U.S.-Iran deal. Meanwhile, since the memorandum—which Vance himself admits is "very vague"—fails to resolve substantive issues, the next 60 days of negotiations remain highly uncertain. By preemptively branding opponents as "peace-breakers," Vance is also preparing a scapegoat and laying groundwork for potential fragility or collapse of the agreement.

Vance’s remarks constitute a carefully calculated political maneuver. He uses extreme anti-war rhetoric to justify the Trump administration’s strategic retreat in the Middle East, while simultaneously leveraging red lines on nuclear issues and military deterrence as bargaining chips in negotiations. This is not only an attempt to maximize pressure on Iran but also a strategic combination aimed at managing domestic political pressures and concealing internal policy divisions.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1868209707253760/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.