Good Cop, Bad Cop? How Vance And Rubio Represent Differing Approaches To US-Iran Deal

Last Updated:July 03, 2026, 13:17 IST

The White House insists both men are aligned behind Donald Trump, but their public messaging on the US-Iran deal has been markedly different.

US Vice-President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have struck differing notes on Iran, Israel and Washington’s Gulf allies, fuelling speculation about possible divisions within President Donald Trump’s administration.

The speculation follows the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran aimed at ending the months-long war. The agreement has drawn criticism from pro-Israel politicians and advocates.

Vance, who led negotiations with Iranian officials in Switzerland, has mounted a public defence of the agreement. He said the talks had made “good progress" and laid a “very good foundation" for a final deal.

The US and Iran have 60 days to conclude the final agreement.

Rubio, meanwhile, has avoided directly criticising Israel and has maintained a tougher public position towards Iran.

The White House has denied that the two senior officials are divided, insisting that both are implementing Trump’s foreign policy.

What Has Vance Said About Israel?

Vance used strong language while responding to Israel’s public opposition to the US-Iran understanding.

“You’re a country of nine million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have," he said, referring to Israel’s use of military force.

Speaking at the White House last month, Vance also suggested that Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure in Beirut were undermining US-led peace efforts.

Trump has also criticised Israel over attacks on civilian buildings. “You don’t have to knock down an apartment house every time you’re looking for somebody, because there are a lot of people in those apartment houses, and they’re not all Hezbollah," Trump had said at the G7 summit in France.

Vance had also publicly asked Israel to stop criticising the Trump administration. “Donald J Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time," Vance told reporters at the White House last month.

“If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world."

How Has Rubio Responded?

Rubio, who travelled through the Gulf in June, defended Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon, describing it as a response to Hezbollah attacks, according to Al Jazeera.

Asked about Vance’s criticism of Israel, Rubio did not directly address the remarks and instead pointed to an attack by Hezbollah on an Israeli checkpoint earlier that week.

The contrast between the two officials has contributed to questions over whether they differ in their approach towards Israel.

What Have They Said About The Gulf States?

Vance travelled to Switzerland for negotiations with Iranian officials and presented an optimistic assessment of the talks.

He also suggested that Arab countries in the region could contribute to a reconstruction fund for Iran, Al Jazeera reported.

Rubio, on the other hand, visited the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain to reassure Gulf allies concerned that the interim US-Iran agreement may be too favourable to Tehran.

On June 23, Rubio said he would not ask Gulf countries to finance Iran’s reconstruction, describing such a possibility as “far down the road". During a meeting with regional officials two days later, he said any agreement with Iran would have to protect the interests of the US and its allies. “While we want a deal, we don’t want a deal at any price," Rubio said.

Where Do Vance And Rubio Stand On Iran?

Vance has repeatedly spoken about the possibility of a more cooperative relationship between Washington and Tehran.

The two countries could “work together to promote peace and prosperity", he said.

Vance also appeared to move away from earlier US demands to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities.

“You can’t tell a country, whether Israel or Iran, they’re not allowed to have any self-defence," he said.

Rubio has taken a tougher public position on Tehran. On June 24, he said Iran would not be allowed to impose tolls or fees on vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz. “International waterways do not belong to any nation-state," Rubio said in Bahrain.

Days later, the US and Iran exchanged strikes for three days over control of the Strait of Hormuz, the first such confrontation since the memorandum was signed on June 17.

What Is The Dispute Over Lebanon?

Rubio has also led talks between Israel and Lebanon that resulted in a framework agreement aimed at ending the war in Lebanon. The agreement has been rejected by Hezbollah and Iran.

The proposed framework does not provide for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, where Israel currently occupies around 20 per cent of the country, according to Al Jazeera.

Tehran has argued that the memorandum signed by the US and Iran already includes a provision to end hostilities in Lebanon and that a separate agreement is unnecessary.

Has The White House Denied A Split?

The White House has rejected suggestions that Vance and Rubio are divided.

“There is one camp – President Trump’s camp – and the entire administration is fully behind the president’s efforts to ensure Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon," White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott called reports of foreign policy divisions between Vance and Rubio a “tired and fake" narrative.

“The entire administration is 100 percent in lockstep behind President Trump," Pigott said.

Rubio has also denied that his position differs from Vance’s. Asked how far his views on Iran diverged from those of the vice-president, Rubio said both officials took their direction from Trump. “Everyone here is aligned behind the president," he said.

Why Are Their Positions Being Compared?

Vance and Rubio are the two most senior figures involved in the Trump administration’s foreign policy.

Before assuming office, Vance frequently criticised foreign wars as a waste of lives and money.

Rubio, meanwhile, developed a reputation as a foreign policy hawk during his time in the Senate and advocated a more confrontational approach towards Iran, Russia and Cuba.

Both are also seen as potential successors to Trump and represent competing constituencies within the Republican Party.

One side includes Republicans who support a more interventionist American foreign policy. The other comprises voters and policy professionals who believe recent foreign wars were costly and reckless.

Their differing public statements on Iran and Israel have therefore revived questions about whether those divisions are also present within the Trump administration.

About the Author

Karishma Jain

Karishma Jain, Chief Sub Editor at News18.com, writes and edits opinion pieces on a variety of subjects, including Indian politics and policy, culture and the arts, technology and social change. Follo...Read More

News world Good Cop, Bad Cop? How Vance And Rubio Represent Differing Approaches To US-Iran Deal

Read More