The war against Iran is never really over

Introduction: a peace hanging by a thread

A ceasefire that won't call itself by its real name

U.S. Vice President JD Vance admitted Wednesday what many observers had feared for weeks: the fragile truce between the United States and Iran could collapse, and the country could resume direct military hostilities against Tehran. "That's kind of up to the Iranians," he summed up, according to The Hill, a phrase as blunt as it is revealing of the real fragility of this negotiated peace.

Since last April, the two countries have been living under a tenuous ceasefire, having agreed to a sixty-day window to finalize the details of a peace plan reached on June 17. That deadline is approaching, and nothing guarantees the two sides will reach a final agreement before it expires.

An administration that refuses to rule out the military option

"The president doesn't intend to send our military back there unless he's forced to, unless there's a clearly defined objective to do so," Vance said, on the sidelines of his speech at Naval Air Station Oceana, in Virginia. A seemingly reassuring statement, but one that leaves all the latitude needed to justify a resumption of strikes if Washington deems it necessary.

This carefully maintained strategic ambiguity illustrates well the Trump administration's posture since the start of this crisis: keep maximum pressure on Tehran while publicly displaying a sincere desire for diplomatic resolution of the conflict.

The precise conditions Vance laid out

Two clearly identified red lines

According to The Hill, Vance identified two specific scenarios that would, in his own words, change "the calculus" for the Americans: an Iranian attempt to rebuild its nuclear program, or a resumption of fire on commercial vessels in the strategic region of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

"If we need to do more, sure, that's kind of up to the Iranians. If they try to rebuild their nuclear program, if they start shooting at commercial ships again, that's going to change our calculus," he said, according to remarks faithfully reported by The Hill.

A presidential directive to negotiate in good faith

"But for now, what the president has said is go get a deal, go negotiate in good faith, and that's what he's empowered us to do," Vance added, implicitly acknowledging that the diplomatic path remains, for now, the Trump administration's official priority on this explosive file.

This wording, cautious on the surface, nonetheless hides a harsher reality: diplomacy here is just one option among others, revocable at any moment if American strategic interests, as unilaterally defined by Washington, are no longer deemed satisfied by how the negotiations unfold.

What Trump himself says about it

Measured optimism displayed publicly

President Donald Trump himself commented on the file's progress, stating that "Iran's denuclearization is going well" and that recent diplomatic meetings had been "very good meetings," while conceding some uncertainty with a cautious "we'll see," according to remarks reported by The Hill.

This measured presidential messaging contrasts with Trump's usual triumphalism on other files, perhaps suggesting a real awareness, at the top of the American government, of the persistent fragility of this still largely provisional peace with Tehran.

A cynical division of responsibility already announced

More tellingly, Trump had said earlier this month, regarding the negotiations with Iran: "If it works, I'll take the credit. If it doesn't work, I'll blame JD," a line both humorous and cruelly revealing of the power dynamic between the president and his vice president on this high-stakes file.

This preemptive distribution of blame, delivered with an almost theatrical casualness, speaks volumes about the political culture of an administration where personal loyalty sometimes outweighs collective responsibility in the face of stakes as serious as a possible resumption of war.

The rhetoric of total strength

"We hold all the cards," Vance insists

On Fox News, on the show "The Ingraham Angle," Vance had already confidently stated: "We hold all the cards in this negotiation," a line meant to project an image of strength and total control over how the talks with Tehran unfold.

This rhetoric of absolute dominance, also repeated during a notable appearance on Bill Maher's show according to the Guardian, rests on the argument that Iran's nuclear program is now "functionally destroyed" and that the price of a barrel of oil has dropped to around $73 thanks to American pressure.

Mission accomplished, even if negotiations fail

"We obviously want it to be a success, but even if it's not a success, we've accomplished the core mission, which is to make sure the Iranians never get a nuclear weapon," Vance stated, according to The Hill, a declaration that skillfully redefines the very criteria for victory in this conflict.

This strategic redefinition of success allows the administration to claim victory regardless of how the negotiations ultimately turn out, a rhetorical maneuver that deserves to be called out for what it is: political insurance against diplomatic failure.

Experts' persistent doubts about Iran's nuclear program

An enriched uranium stockpile that hasn't disappeared

Despite Vance's repeated assurances, several critics of the current deal, cited by the Guardian, point out that Iran still holds a stockpile of 60%-enriched uranium, a reserve that, even if difficult to access for now, remains physically present on Iranian soil and represents a medium-term proliferation risk.

The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, himself acknowledged last Friday that reducing or transferring this stockpile abroad remains a possible option while the United States and Iran continue efforts toward a comprehensive and lasting agreement.

Negotiating from a position of relative weakness, according to some

These same critics argue that the Trump administration is actually negotiating from a less favorable position than publicly claimed, precisely because of this residual stockpile of enriched uranium, which partly contradicts the repeated claim of a "functionally destroyed" nuclear program.

This gap between the triumphalist official narrative and the more nuanced technical assessment of international experts perfectly illustrates the risk of strategic misinformation that often accompanies highly publicized peace negotiations between rival great powers.

The recent escalation that weakened the truce

A tanker struck, strikes exchanged

According to the Guardian, Vance's appearance on Bill Maher's show preceded by only a few hours the announcement that a tanker had been struck by a projectile in the Strait of Hormuz, triggering a series of reciprocal strikes between the United States and Iran, the worst escalation observed since the interim peace deal was signed.

Washington said it struck Iranian targets overnight, while Tehran claimed it targeted sites linked to American forces in response to an earlier attack on a commercial vessel that occurred a few days prior.

A truce that holds despite everything, for now

Despite this flare-up of violence, both sides visibly chose to preserve the general framework of the ceasefire rather than let it collapse completely, a decision that perhaps reflects mutual exhaustion in the face of a conflict costly for both parties involved, both in human and economic terms.

This persistent fragility, made up of isolated incidents followed by cautious de-escalations, illustrates well the unstable nature of this still largely provisional peace between two powers that, at bottom, remain deeply distrustful of one another.

What this means for the West and its allies

A file closely watched in Kyiv and Brussels

For Western allies, America's handling of the Iranian file constitutes an important precedent, revealing how Washington might approach other major crises, notably continued support for Ukraine against the aggression of Russia and Vladimir Putin.

An administration capable of maintaining credible pressure on Tehran while avoiding all-out war sends a welcome signal of strategic firmness to the entire Western camp, provided that firmness doesn't translate into disengagement from other essential geopolitical priorities.

The risk of American strategic resources being spread too thin

The main risk, for allied capitals, lies in a possible overextension of American military and diplomatic resources across several simultaneous crisis theaters, from Iran to Ukraine, not to mention the constant monitoring of Chinese ambitions in the Pacific.

This overextension, should it be confirmed, could weaken the overall American capacity to effectively support all of its international commitments, a risk Western strategists have been watching with particular attention in recent months.

The personal dimension of the Trump-Vance rivalry on this file

A vice president shouldering the political weight alone

Trump's joke about "blaming JD" should negotiations fail, though delivered in a light tone, reveals an asymmetric power dynamic in which Vance shoulders most of the public and diplomatic responsibility for a file whose consequences, in case of failure, could nonetheless drag the entire country into a costly new armed conflict.

This division of roles, where the president claims credit for success in advance while already laying the groundwork to shift blame for failure onto his second-in-command, illustrates a governing culture where individual political survival sometimes outweighs the real cohesion of the leadership team.

A test of personal credibility for Vance's political future

For Vance, considered the natural frontrunner for the Republican nomination in the 2028 presidential election, successfully or unsuccessfully managing this Iranian file could have direct and lasting repercussions on his personal credibility in foreign policy, an area where his experience remains relatively limited compared to other, more seasoned American political figures.

A resounding failure on this file, with an open resumption of hostilities against Iran, could thus weigh heavily on his future presidential ambitions, while a lasting diplomatic success would considerably strengthen his international stature even before the official start of the race for the White House.

The historical precedent of fragile ceasefires in the Middle East

A region accustomed to truces that don't hold

The recent history of the Middle East is full of examples of grandly announced ceasefires that later collapsed under the weight of mutual provocations, persistent distrust, and diverging strategic interests among the signing parties, a precedent the current truce with Iran cannot afford to ignore.

This structural fragility of peace agreements in this part of the world demands heightened caution when assessing the optimistic statements from Vance and Trump, however publicly reassuring they may be, given the complex and often unpredictable reality of the regional dynamics at play.

Why this time could be different, or not

Some analysts argue that the current combination of severe economic sanctions, targeted military strikes, and direct negotiations could produce a more lasting outcome than previous diplomatic attempts, while others remain deeply skeptical about the Iranian regime's ability to durably honor its international commitments.

Only time will settle this debate, but analytical caution remains warranted in the face of government statements that have historically often overestimated the real solidity of agreements reached with Tehran over previous decades.

Critical voices within the Republican camp itself

A hawkish wing demanding more firmness

Within the Republican Party itself, some more hawkish voices openly criticize the diplomatic approach favored by Vance and Trump, believing that only a sustained and prolonged show of military force could guarantee the definitive, long-term elimination of any Iranian nuclear threat.

These internal critics, though currently a minority, could gain traction if negotiations were to fail in the coming weeks, making it harder for the administration to justify its "negotiated maximum pressure" strategy to an electoral base increasingly impatient for concrete, definitive results.

Internal pressure complicating diplomatic room to maneuver

This constant internal pressure considerably limits the real diplomatic flexibility available to the Trump administration in its negotiations with Tehran, with any potential concession risking being immediately interpreted by the party's hardest-line wing as an unacceptable sign of weakness toward a regime hostile to the West.

This internal dynamic, typical of contemporary American politics, further complicates the search for a lasting and balanced solution to this crisis, in a context where domestic political imperatives weigh almost as heavily as the international strategic considerations themselves.

The looming shadow of the isolationist wing of the MAGA movement

On the opposite end of the spectrum, part of the most isolationist MAGA base instead criticizes any prolonged military involvement in the Middle East, arguing that America should focus its resources elsewhere rather than risk a new, costly engagement against Tehran.

This internal fracture, between traditional hawks and committed isolationists, puts Vance in a particularly delicate position, forced to simultaneously manage two ideological currents that are difficult to reconcile within his own political movement.

The pushback from Congressional hawks against the deal

Ted Cruz and skeptical senators step up

Several Republican lawmakers, including Senator Ted Cruz, have publicly cast doubt on the solidity of the deal reached with Tehran, believing the current truce looks more like a tactical pause than a genuine, lasting diplomatic settlement of the Iranian nuclear file.

According to remarks reported by Esquire, these critics point out that the deal contains no binding guarantee preventing Iran from eventually resuming its uranium enrichment program once international pressure eases and media attention shifts elsewhere.

A Congress demanding more transparency from the White House

According to reporting from KUNR, several members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are now demanding more regular classified briefings on the real state of negotiations, expressing growing frustration over the lack of concrete details provided by the Trump administration.

This demand for greater transparency reflects growing distrust on Capitol Hill, where there is concern that the executive branch is granting itself excessive latitude on a file with potentially irreversible consequences for American national security.

The tug-of-war over international nuclear inspections

Tehran slows access for IAEA inspectors

The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, confirmed that international inspectors should be able to visit Iranian nuclear sites, but Tehran continues to impose strict conditions on the exact terms of these visits, according to information reported by Reuters and the Washington Times.

This Iranian resistance to complete and unhindered international verification fuels persistent suspicions that the regime is seeking to buy time rather than demonstrate genuine transparency about the state of its nuclear program.

Al Jazeera highlights the demand for strict verification

According to reporting by Al Jazeera, the UN agency insists on the need for rigorous, independent verification of Iranian nuclear ambitions before any full lifting of the international economic sanctions currently weighing on the Tehran regime.

This international demand, should it run into persistent refusal from Iranian authorities, could alone be enough to derail the entire diplomatic process patiently built since the initial deal of June 17.

The economic dimension: sanctions and development funds

A fund worth several hundred billion dollars at stake

According to information reported by The Independent, the envisioned deal would include creating an economic development fund of up to $300 billion, designed to encourage Iran to permanently abandon its military nuclear ambitions in exchange for greater international economic integration.

This major economic component illustrates the real complexity of the ongoing negotiations, which go well beyond the purely military question to encompass trade, energy, and financial stakes of considerable magnitude for the future of the entire Middle East region.

A conditional and reversible lifting of sanctions

The American economic sanctions that have strangled Iran's economy for years would only be lifted gradually and under strictly conditional terms, with the explicit possibility of immediately reinstating them should any breach of Tehran's commitments under this deal be confirmed.

This gradual, reversible approach, typical of the maximum pressure doctrine favored by the Trump administration, aims to maintain constant negotiating leverage over the Iranian regime throughout the deal's implementation process.

Regional allies watching with extreme caution

Israel keeps a wary eye on every comma of the deal

Israeli authorities, who conducted their own strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this year, are closely monitoring every development in these negotiations, fearing that a deal too generous toward Tehran could jeopardize the security gains achieved at the cost of considerable military commitment.

This Israeli distrust, documented by several outlets including The Hill, has notably sparked notable tensions with some of Vance's advisers, accused by critics of adopting too conciliatory a tone toward the legitimate concerns of the Jewish state.

Gulf monarchies caught between relief and vigilance

The Persian Gulf countries, directly exposed to the economic consequences of any potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, welcome any lasting de-escalation while remaining extremely watchful of the very real risk of a sudden resumption of hostilities in a region through which a crucial share of the world's hydrocarbon trade passes.

This cautious balancing position, shared by several Gulf capitals, illustrates just how much the entire region remains suspended on the outcome of negotiations that directly determine the economic and security stability of the whole Middle East.

Conclusion: a peace still to be won, not yet secured

A file far from closed despite appearances

Vance's statements this week confirm what many seasoned observers already suspected: the crisis with Iran is far from resolved, and the possibility of resumed military hostilities remains very real should the current negotiations fail in the weeks following the expiration of the sixty-day window agreed upon last June.

This persistent uncertainty is a reminder that premature triumphalist statements, whether from Vance or Trump himself, must always be met with rigorous journalistic skepticism, particularly on a file as volatile as Iran's nuclear program.

What the West must watch in the coming weeks

The coming weeks will be decisive in assessing whether this administration truly manages to turn a fragile truce into a lasting peace, or whether Iran and the United States are inexorably heading toward a new military escalation with potentially devastating consequences for the entire region and, by extension, for global geopolitical stability.

The West, simultaneously engaged in supporting Ukraine against Russia and in constantly monitoring Chinese ambitions, cannot afford to ignore this Iranian file, whose outcome will continue to durably influence the balance of power between Western democracies and the authoritarian regimes openly challenging them.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Method and sources used

This commentary relies primarily on the The Hill article reporting the exact statements of JD Vance and Donald Trump regarding the ceasefire with Iran, corroborated by reporting from the Guardian and CBS News on the broader context of negotiations and recent military escalation.

All direct quotes come from these verified sources, without invention or rewording that would betray their original meaning. The technical assessments on Iran's nuclear program rely on public statements from the International Atomic Energy Agency, as reported by the Guardian.

Acknowledged limitations

I do not have access to classified assessments or confidential intelligence data on the real state of Iran's nuclear program. My analysis relies exclusively on public statements and expert assessments available at the time of writing.

This article adopts a critical and cautious tone toward the optimistic statements of the Trump-Vance administration on this file, consistent with this columnist's editorial line, while strictly relying on verifiable and publicly sourced facts.

Sources

Primary sources

The Hill — Vance warns US could resume war: 'That's kind of up to the Iranians', July 1, 2026

Secondary sources

The Guardian — JD Vance claims US holds all the cards in Iran and will win 'either way', June 27, 2026

CBS News — U.S.-Iran Latest: Vance says core mission of war achieved, July 1, 2026

Reuters — US, Iran talks conclude in Doha, focused on Strait of Hormuz, July 1, 2026

The Daily Wire — JD Vance To Troops: You Will Always Know Why You're Heading To War, July 1, 2026

The Independent — Vance begs Iran deal critics to have faith in Trump, June 18, 2026