"Trump was played by Netanyahu," Vans throws the blame so loudly | Jing Brewing House

Ask AI · What political intentions does Vance have in blaming Netanyahu?

▲ Source photo: On October 22, 2025, local time, Vice President of the United States Vance met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in Jerusalem. Photo/IC photo

With the Iran conflict not yet over, the U.S. and Israel have already started fighting each other.

According to CCTV News on March 27, U.S. Vice President Vance, during a phone call earlier this week, “criticized Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s overly optimistic predictions about this U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict,” and believed Netanyahu “exaggerated the likelihood of a regime change in Iran.”

A U.S. official also said that before the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran, Netanyahu had tried to convince the U.S. that this conflict was “easy to handle,” emphasizing that “the likelihood of a regime change in Iran is very high,” but Vance was skeptical of that. The official also said that in the U.S.-Iran “ceasefire negotiations,” Vance “played a leading role,” while Israel was trying to sabotage the talks.

According to Vance, the decision to go to war against Iran was the U.S. being tricked by Netanyahu into a pit. By loudly shifting the war responsibility to Netanyahu, Vance may not necessarily help Trump get out of the mess, but it could help him establish his position in American political circles.

Is Trump’s mess Vance’s stage?

Vance is seen as a representative figure of the MAGA (Make America Great Again) camp. The MAGA camp, in foreign policy, insists on a form of isolationism—put plainly, the U.S. should not concern itself with what happens outside, and should focus resources on the United States’ domestic affairs.

Since the beginning of 2026, the Trump administration has launched two wars, but Vance’s stance toward both has been rather ambiguous. When the U.S. military was “capturing” Maduro, Vance was not there, or perhaps he had doubts about whether the U.S. military could achieve its objectives. If something like a “Bay of Pigs”-style incident were to happen, Vance not being present would give him an advantage over Rubio, who advocated taking action as vigorously as possible.

Meanwhile, as the U.S. and Israel carried out strikes on Iran, Vance’s stance remained cautious and contradictory. Privately, Vance warned that the U.S. could get stuck in another Middle East war mess, but in public he still indicated that he supports President Trump’s decisions.

Even so, it is already clear to the outside world that Vance is one of the more anti-war figures within the Trump administration. After the U.S.-Israel-Iran war broke out, Vance kept a very low profile and rarely made statements. This is both an expression of his political position and a way to leave himself room to maneuver politically.

The progress of the U.S.-Israel-Iran war has not been as smooth as Trump and Netanyahu expected. Instead, it has played out like Vance warned: the U.S. is on the edge of another Middle East war mess. From the military battlefield perspective, Iran still has the capability to retaliate against the U.S. military bases in the Middle East. The U.S. and Israel have carried out strikes in turns and “decapitated” Iran’s military and political leadership, but the Iranian regime has not shown signs of collapse or disintegration.

Trump announced that the U.S. had already won, but the results have been disappointing. At this point, Vance attributes Trump’s decision to start the war to Netanyahu’s deception, which can also be seen as helping Trump shift blame—though it may not make Trump satisfied. What Trump needs now is for Vance to reach an agreement with Iran.

For Vance, publicly blaming Netanyahu likely also carries dissatisfaction with the role Israel played during the negotiations. Under Pakistan’s shuttle diplomacy, the U.S. and Iran each put forward peace agreements. Although the two sides’ differences are substantial, at least things are moving toward the direction of talks.

The difficulty of direct negotiations between the U.S. and Iran lies not only in the gap between their positions, but also in Israel’s unwillingness to see U.S.-Iran talks. When Trump announced the delay of military strikes against Iran, Israel continued to “decapitate” Iran’s senior leadership, concentrating its efforts on striking the Tehran regime and continuing to push for “regime change.” For Vance to consolidate his standing in U.S. domestic politics, the main challenge he faces is not only shifting blame to Netanyahu, but also how to deal with Netanyahu.

The U.S.-Israel differences have already been made public

When Vance publicly criticized Netanyahu, the differences between the U.S. and Israel also became public.

In fact, Trump may not have been tricked by Netanyahu into going to war against Iran. If it is true, as Vance says, then wouldn’t Trump—the one who prides himself on being especially good at deals—be handing Netanyahu a piece of the victory while the fire is stoked?

During the Iran war, the U.S. and Israel share common goals: destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and missile capabilities, dismantling the Shiite resistance groups supported by Iran, destroying Iran’s air and naval forces, and so on. But compared with Netanyahu, Trump has shown more opportunism and speculation in this war.

At the beginning of the war, Trump believed the U.S. military could replicate the Venezuela model, and therefore made regime change an objective of the United States, even viewing the war as revenge for the 1979 seizure by Iran of U.S. diplomatic personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. But as Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz and oil prices surged, Trump had to repeatedly lower oil prices by releasing ceasefire signals.

Based on the current situation, the U.S.’s weak points are in the financial markets: oil prices are high, inflation is rising, expectations for the Federal Reserve to raise rates are increasing, and the United States’ nearly $40 trillion in national debt burden is enormous.

Israel, especially Netanyahu, had waited for years, finally getting an opportunity to strike Iran together with the United States. Israel itself is a “war country” forged in the fires of conflict in the Middle East. Iran’s current counterattacks do not pose a fatal threat to Israel, while Israel has motives to keep the war going—completely reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East in one stroke.

Vance needs this Iran card

For Trump, the Iran war has now reached a critical point. Relying only on airstrikes cannot, in the short term, remove Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz; if ground forces were sent, the outlook would be even harder to predict.

Caught between advancing and retreating, Trump proposed negotiations and delayed strikes on Iran’s core objectives—yet this also created opportunities for Vance to “take the stage” and achieve accomplishments. According to sources, Iran believes Vance will keep his commitment, and his involvement is seen as an appropriate level to negotiate with the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Kalibaf.

As two key figures in the Trump administration, both Rubio and Vance are seen as potential choices for future Republican presidential candidates. Rubio has substantially boosted his popularity within the Republican Party through his actions related to Venezuela and the ongoing actions targeting Cuba. If this operation against Iran also achieves the results Trump expected, then Rubio would have three diplomatic aces in hand. In comparison, Vance seems to have little to show.

The difficulty of the U.S.-Israel-Iran war is far more than that of Caribbean affairs. For Vance, under political pressure, it is especially important to play a positive role in bringing the war to an end. Therefore, since Israel can’t be handled quickly for the moment, it seems like a reasonable choice to first take a stance ahead of Rubio by shifting blame.

Written by / Sun Xingjie (Professor and Associate Dean, School of International Relations, Sun Yat-sen University)

Edited by / Chi Daohua

Proofread by / Zhang Yanjun