At around 8:00 PM local time (Eastern Time in the U.S.) on August 5, U.S. Vice President Vance gave a televised interview to Fox News, in which he expressed his latest views on the Iran issue.

Foreign and domestic authoritative media have reported on this. (Media coverage faithfully reflects the original content.)

Vance stated:

"First, Iranians are extremely difficult to deal with. Second, their system is deeply fragmented.

Within their system, there are people who wish for peace to end, and others who are fanatical radicals pushing for war to continue.

Our task is to navigate through this chaos and secure the best possible outcome for the American people and the President of the United States.

I believe we will ultimately succeed — the process will be messy, and it will take time to get there — but success is inevitable. Today's oil price is $79. It will fall and remain low.

Iran will never possess nuclear weapons, and America’s position will grow even stronger. We are now in the middle phase of this game. People are trying to predict how events will unfold.

I can confidently tell you that the outcome will favor the United States. But we will employ all tools — military, economic, diplomatic — to ensure this matter reaches the right conclusion."

Vance openly described Iran as "extremely difficult to negotiate with" and its system as "deeply fragmented," emphasizing that the process "will be chaotic and require time." This is not merely complaint; rather, it serves as a strategic accompaniment to signals from the White House indicating willingness to negotiate. On one hand, the Trump camp needs to project an image of imminent progress to stabilize markets; on the other, Vance is tasked with amplifying the difficulty of negotiations to lower expectations among domestic audiences and international markets in advance. This dual messaging strategy leaves ample room for retreat — if talks succeed, credit goes to America’s ability to "navigate through chaos"; if they fail, blame falls on Iran’s "intractability."

While highlighting difficulties, Vance clearly outlined three non-negotiable ultimate objectives for the U.S.:

Economically: Drive down international oil prices and maintain them at low levels long-term to alleviate inflationary pressures and relieve the burden on American households.

Safely: Strictly constrain Iran’s development to ensure it never acquires nuclear weapons, eliminating regional nuclear security threats.

Geopolitically: Establish a more favorable strategic position for the United States in the Middle East.

These three goals form the U.S.’s red lines in this contest, signaling that while the U.S. is open to negotiation, it will not easily concede on core national interests.

Vance specifically pointed out the existence within Iran of "pragmatic factions eager for a ceasefire" and "radical extremists pushing for continued war." This reveals the U.S.’s tactical intent: to exploit internal divisions within Iran as leverage in diplomatic maneuvering, aiming to fracture and weaken the opposition to find a breakthrough. However, such an assessment also carries significant risks. While Iran’s internal factions differ on the path to ending conflict, they are highly unified in safeguarding national security. Overemphasizing internal fissures and underestimating the nation’s overall resistance will likely lead to serious strategic miscalculations by the U.S.

Despite Vance’s confidence, ideal goals are clashing fiercely with multiple constraints.

The trajectory of oil prices is constrained by multiple real-world factors, including shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and global supply-demand dynamics. Relying solely on U.S. subjective wishes cannot sustainably suppress oil prices. Once tensions rise, energy prices will rebound quickly, directly impacting American livelihoods and election outcomes.

Domestic anti-war sentiment is growing in the U.S., and midterm elections are approaching. Vance himself is seen as one of the most skeptical figures within the inner circle regarding war. His external actions must account for domestic public opinion and cannot escalate conflict indefinitely.

Iran is not passively waiting — it holds cards over energy routes and is even bypassing the U.S. by establishing an independent management mechanism for the Strait of Hormuz with Oman. Once operational, this mechanism would effectively undermine America’s traditional dominance over the strait, drastically reducing its leverage at the negotiating table.

In summary, Vance’s remarks, while appearing as an objective assessment of U.S.-Iran negotiation prospects, are actually a carefully crafted political and diplomatic exercise in "expectation management." By first dousing hopes ("pouring cold water") and then painting an optimistic future ("drawing a big pie"), he aims to secure maximum strategic initiative for the U.S. government amid complex geopolitical competition.

Against the backdrop of the U.S. being deeply engaged in a costly Middle Eastern conflict, Vance’s statement constitutes a "strategic reassurance." It is both a commitment to domestic populations and markets and a hardline pressure tactic toward Iran. Yet, the outcome of geostrategic competition is never determined by unilateral confidence alone. With multiple contradictions intertwined — including nuclear issues and rules governing strait navigation — this protracted struggle is destined to be long and full of uncertainty.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1872809125425163/

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