Split Signal From Washington: Rubio Backs Pressure, Vance Pushes for a Deal on Iran

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has argued that Washington’s economic pressure on Iran has become so effective that a return to large-scale military operations is no longer necessary.

His comments represent the newest turn in a frequently shifting set of messages from President Donald Trump’s administration regarding the conflict with Iran. They follow a significant midterm setback for Trump’s Republican Party—a defeat the president acknowledged was driven in part by public opposition to the war.

So how do Rubio’s latest remarks align with those of other administration officials, and what do they reveal about the state of the conflict?

What have Trump, Rubio and Vance said about the conflict?

Rubio delivered his latest remarks on Tuesday following a meeting with foreign ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) in Paris.

He said he had told G7 allies that “the economic campaign [against Iran] is so devastating that right now there is no need for major combat operations.”

“We don’t need to conduct military strikes if we’re achieving the same objective through economic means and economic pressure. That’s not stalemate,” Rubio said.

“The economic pressure on Iran is going to get even worse,” he added.

Rubio also urged G7 allies to assist in “protecting shipping” around the contested Strait of Hormuz, where he said US forces would remain.

The secretary of state’s remarks were broadly consistent with Trump’s comments on Monday, when the president said additional strikes against Iran were “quite unlikely.”

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump said the US’s Gulf allies favored maintaining the “status quo,” referring to the American blockade of Iranian ports. He added that there appeared to be “positive momentum” toward ending the conflict, though the US remains “locked and loaded” should conditions change.

Vice President JD Vance, who has been more critical of the war and recently published a lengthy social media post attributing the Republican Party’s midterm defeat to the conflict, favors a deal with Iran—something Trump does not currently consider achievable, according to an informed source cited by Reuters.

Between sanctions and diplomacy: Where does the strategy stand?

Negotiations to end the US-Iran conflict have stalled for months. Iran continues to target vessels it claims are violating its transit conditions in the Strait of Hormuz, while the US expands sanctions, maintains its blockade of Iranian ports, and reportedly plans to cut off Iran’s land-based supply routes.

In September, Iran proposed a seven-day plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restart talks, a timeline Tehran has since said could be shortened to two days. Iran’s demands on the US include lifting the sanctions imposed after the collapse of a June memorandum of understanding (MoU), reducing the US military presence in the region, restoring oil waivers, and releasing frozen Iranian funds.

Caught between reviving an unpopular war and pressing harder for a deal with Tehran, Trump has for now chosen a middle path: intensifying the pressure campaign while avoiding a return to full-scale military action, according to officials quoted by Axios.

That approach is supported by several senior administration figures, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, US officials told Axios.

Yet several US allies in the region—including Pakistan, Iraq, and Turkiye—fear that a prolonged pressure campaign could harm their own commercial interests, one official told the news outlet.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argued that a sustained US policy of heavy sanctions and blockade would merely extend an “unstable status quo” destined to escalate into further military confrontation.

One “walk-away” option for Trump, he suggested, could be to quietly ease the sanctions and blockade while preserving them “on paper.”

In that scenario, “Trump walks away and claims to retain the blockade and sanctions infrastructure, but in reality, allows it to imperceptibly wither away,” Parsi told Al Jazeera. “The blockade begins to loosen, sanctions enforcement begins to decay, and slowly but surely, Asian and Middle Eastern countries begin trading with and investing in Iran.”

“A new equilibrium emerges in which sanctions enforcement is strong enough for the US to claim the restrictions are still in place, yet weak enough to prevent Tehran from challenging the new status quo,” Parsi said.

Have the midterm results shaped Trump’s strategy?

According to analysts, they have.

Negar Mortazavi, senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, DC, said the Republicans’ decisive election loss “dramatically raised the political cost of more escalation” and handed Democrats a stronger mandate to challenge the war.

“If Democrats unite and use their new power aggressively, they can make it increasingly difficult for Trump to continue the war, pressuring him to end it,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera.

“A diplomatic breakthrough is not guaranteed, but the political and strategic costs of escalation keep growing, making another round of war less likely,” she added.

Both Trump and Vance have acknowledged that the Iran war was partly to blame for the Republicans’ defeat, with Trump suggesting voters were not prepared for higher petrol prices.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll completed on Monday found that 71 percent of Americans—including 93 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of Republicans—favor congressional legislation to halt the Iran war.

What is Iran saying?

Iranian officials have sharpened their rhetoric even as Washington appears to be stepping back from military escalation.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Tuesday that the war will “not end either through military means or by increasing sanctions,” but only through “using the language of respect.”

In comments carried by Iran’s IRNA news agency, he urged the US “to act on Iran’s demands and conditions,” adding that Trump “should have realised much earlier that he has not achieved, and will not achieve, any of his goals in the war with Iran.”

Iran’s top security official Mohsen Rezaei said in a social media post on Monday that the US government had been “wrecked” by the war and that it was time for it to “surrender” to Iran’s demands.

Mohamed Vall, reporting for Al Jazeera from Tehran, observed that Iran’s tone has grown “more confident than ever before.”

“They’re trying to convey to the public, internally, and also to the Americans, that there is no way this war can be declared over without responding to those conditions presented by Iran during the negotiations,” Vall said.

Where does diplomacy stand now?

The signals are mixed.

Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Tuesday that Doha is “working tirelessly” on its mediation efforts and has received positive responses from both sides.

Trump, speaking a day earlier after hosting Qatar’s prime minister at the White House, likewise cited “momentum towards the end of this conflict,” noting that “Iran is talking to us, and they’re talking very politely.”

Rubio, for his part, said the US remains “open to diplomacy” but described Iran’s current demands as “totally unrealistic.”

“We expect that could change—and if it does, we’re prepared for diplomacy,” he said.

Iranian officials, however, have appeared more skeptical of the latest mediation reports, insisting that the US must accept their demands.

Rezaei said on Tuesday that no negotiations were under way between Tehran and Washington, and that Iran would retaliate against any new US attack by striking US bases “far away.” He also said Iran would not allow any of its enriched nuclear material to leave the country, rejecting a concession the US has sought in potential nuclear talks.

In a social media post, Rezaei further accused the US of “manufacturing FAKE NEWS about imaginary talks.”

Source link