Vice President JD Vance privately expressed skepticism about U.S. military strikes on Iran before President Donald Trump decided to proceed with the operation, according to a new report. The officials said Vance raised concerns internally but ultimately supported the decision once it was made.
Two senior Trump officials told the news outlet that Vance had questioned the wisdom of the strikes during internal discussions. One official described the vice president as "skeptical," "worried about success" and generally opposed to a war with Iran. Another said Vance's role was to present different viewpoints to the president, adding that "once the decision has been made, he's fully on board."
Trump acknowledged a difference in perspective when asked about the issue Monday during a news conference. "He was, I would say, philosophically a little bit different than me," Trump told reporters in Florida. "I think he was maybe less enthusiastic about going, but he was quite enthusiastic. But I felt it was something we had to do."
-
White House Slams News Story About FBI Warning California Police Over Potential Iran Drone Strikes: 'Should Be Immediately Retracted'
-
Trump Reportedly Told G7 Leaders That Iran Is 'About To Surrender' Even As Its Leadership Vows To Fight On
-
Rand Paul Warns Republicans Will Face a 'Disastrous Election' If War In Iran Continues
The debate highlights tensions between the military action and Vance's political identity as one of the administration's most prominent critics of foreign intervention. A Marine Corps veteran who served in Iraq, Vance has long argued against extended overseas conflicts and previously warned about the costs of war with Iran.
Despite those views, the vice president publicly defended the strikes after the conflict began. Speaking on Fox News, Vance said the administration had defined a limited objective: preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. "There's just no way that Donald Trump is going to allow this country to get into a multi-year conflict with no clear end in sight and no clear objective," Vance said.
Vance allies have argued the action fits within the administration's "America First" approach if it remains limited and avoids nation-building or long-term military commitments.
The strikes have nonetheless sparked debate among Trump's supporters, including commentators Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Carlson called the developments in the Middle East "absolutely disgusting and evil," saying Trump has "lost his way."
Vance's caution about military intervention predates the current conflict. Last year, during internal discussions about U.S. strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, he questioned whether such actions aligned with the administration's broader foreign policy goals.
© 2025 Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
