How does Iran view shift in US approach after JD Vance ordered away? 

Tehran, Iran – Decision-makers in Iran are now considering the implications of Vice President JD Vance’s removal from the Iran file to focus on domestic issues, which analysts say could increase the chances of conflict between the two sides.

Vance has been the US’s chief negotiator in talks with Iran, but US President Donald Trump told him to direct his focus on alleged Democratic “corruption”, according to a post by Trump on Truth Social on Thursday. He added that a deal with Iran was no longer a priority for the government.

The vice president is believed to be viewed by Tehran as one of the more pragmatic figures in the Trump administration since the US and Israel launched their surprise war on Iran on February 28.

Nasser Hadian, professor of international relations at the University of Tehran, said that by assigning Vance to the case of alleged domestic corruption, Trump was mainly signalling a confrontation with the Democrats after their sweeping victories against the governing Republican Party in the midterm elections.

But the move may also serve Israel, which is reportedly eager for Trump to launch new strikes against Iran, after Vance blamed the Republicans’ humiliating defeat in the midterms on the war.

“Another signal is to Iran, essentially saying reaching a deal now is not a priority, and that the person known to have a relatively softer stance on Iran was redirected to other issues,” Hadian said.

The negotiator

Vance is believed to have been in favour of a negotiated resolution to the war, due to its rising economic costs for US citizens and their opposition to the war suggested in opinion polls.

The vice president was backed by Trump envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff when he negotiated the now-defunct memorandum of understanding with Iran in June, which briefly paused the war and resumed shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

Rubio has, meanwhile, called Iranian authorities “insane” for their demands on ending the war. But he also acknowledged the cost of an all-out war and seeks to win via deepening economic pressure and isolation on all Iranians.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has faced an impeachment vote due to his role in the war, and Central Command chief Brad Cooper are reportedly in favour of renewed military action against Iran.

Vance wrote a letter to Iran’s security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, in late October, as regional mediators redoubled their efforts to bridge gaps between the two sides. Rezaei initially described the tone of the missive as positive, but by last week, he was addressing claims of progress and a possible direct meeting with Vance as “fake news about imaginary talks”.

“You lost the war and the election. Vance has conceded, Rubio is heading for the exit, Hegseth is about to be fired, and the CENTCOM commander is now a podcaster!” he wrote on X at the time.

‘With or without Vance’

Mediated contacts are ongoing between the two sides, but no breakthrough is expected. Tehran is demanding seven conditions and clear sequencing of concessions to end the war, but this is appearing to be unacceptable to the US.

Mohammad Saleh Sedghian, director of the Arab Center for Iranian Studies, pointed out that Trump has repeatedly highlighted alleged rifts within the Iranian negotiating team. But he said Iranian authorities were also questioning the reliability of another potential agreement with Washington.

“Even if you can imagine Mr Rezaei sitting down with Mr Vance, and reaching a deal? What guarantee is there that Trump will enforce it?” he told Al Jazeera.

The atmosphere of mistrust between the two sides is also complicating prospects of a deal, he added. This means that the ongoing US siege on Iran and harsh sanctions will continue, something that could cost Iran more than a relatively shorter military conflict with Washington, he added.

“The blockade and disruptions are significantly raising the costs for Iranian people. The current state of no war and no negotiated resolution is very dangerous,” Sedghian said.

Iranian reformist newspaper Shargh argued this week that Vance’s role concerning Iran is unresolved rather than definitely terminated, but also said the conflict could further escalate.

Conservative Farhikhtegan daily disputed the portrayal of Vance as genuinely antiwar, arguing that diplomacy, military force and economic pressure ultimately serve a common objective for the US in trying to coerce Iran to accept its conditions.

For now, the two sides are continuing to fight over control in the Strait of Hormuz, with retaliatory attacks on shipping and military installations.

On Friday and Saturday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and regular army separately claimed several new incidents of vessels either hitting naval mines or being struck by projectiles after attempting “unauthorised” routes in the critical waterway.

The latest weekly report by the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) on Friday reported eight incidents in and around the strait, mostly in the southern route near Oman.

UKMTO also recorded 139 outbound and 169 inbound transits through the strait during the week, approximately 65 percent below pre-conflict levels.

Hadian believes that Iranian decision-makers will not tolerate the current situation indefinitely.

“The authorities will either go after their warships, their vessels, or their military bases,” he added. “The stronger the blockade becomes, including through maritime pressure and disruptions for overland borders and air travel, war becomes more probable.”

But Trump’s sidelining of Vance on the Iran issue will not radically alter the current situation, Hadian said, since Washington believes its tactic of economic pressure on Tehran can force it to make concessions.

“The US would have done this with or without Vance, and I believe it will continue to do this,” he said.