WASHINGTON -- US Vice President JD Vance has again signaled that the White House is prepared to use force against Iran if diplomacy fails, raising the stakes around a 60-day memorandum of understanding (MOU) that has halted open hostilities but left the core disputes unresolved.
In an interview on The Michael Knowles Show released on June 30, Vance cast the US approach toward Iran as a stark choice: a longer-term agreement anchored in permanent, verifiable nuclear inspections, or renewed military action to preserve what Washington sees as gains already secured. He said President Donald Trump wants diplomacy to continue but only if Tehran accepts enforceable limits on its nuclear program.
Vance described Iran's public messaging as contradictory, pointing to what he said was a gap between Tehran's public denial of peace talks and its acknowledgment of ongoing technical discussions.
SEE ALSO:
US, Iran Indirect Talks Under Way In Doha"They'll say, 'No, no, there aren't peace talks ongoing, but there are technical talks between the United States and Iran about the peace deal,'" Vance said. "It's a Persian negotiating tactic and a Persian rhetorical device that I don't understand."
Responding to critics who have urged a harder military line, Vance defended Trump's approach as one of calibrated coercion rather than open-ended escalation. "The president is saying, 'I'm willing to drop bombs,' and he's clearly shown that he's willing to drop bombs, but only if it serves an objective," he said.
In a separate interview with Fox News, Vance said Washington was focused less on rhetoric than on whether Tehran was prepared to make "real concessions."
"We care a lot less about what the Iranians say. We care a lot more about what they do," he said.
The remarks come as uncertainty hangs over the next phase of negotiations. Iranian negotiators did not meet US envoys in Doha on June 30 as expected, clouding hopes that the current cease-fire framework could quickly evolve into a broader settlement.
Back in Washington, analysts warn the current arrangement amounts less to a peace agreement than a temporary pause in fighting. That tension between diplomacy and deterrence was at the center of a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on June 30.
A Military Posture That Can Hold, For Now
Speaking at the CFR panel, retired General Joseph L. Votel -- former Commander of US Central Command (2016–2019) -- said US forces remain capable of sustaining deterrence through the current 60-day negotiation period. This comes even as Washington reassesses the vulnerabilities exposed by the recent conflict.
Votel noted that Washington retains significant operational flexibility because of its naval presence, particularly through two carrier strike groups operating in regional waters.
SEE ALSO:
Where Did Iran's Hijab Police Go?"Right now we are sustainable from a military standpoint," Votel said, while cautioning that maintaining such a posture becomes harder "after several months."
While Votel noted that official details regarding damage to US security infrastructure have been closely held by the military, he characterized the damage to the US regional basing network as "widespread" and "operationally relevant."
Open-source reporting indicates that since the war began on February 28, 16 to 20 regional sites were struck. These included major installations such as the Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, and the forward CENTCOM headquarters at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
Votel noted the conflict had definitively exposed the vulnerability of fixed military infrastructure across the Gulf against sustained attacks, triggering an active review of Washington's regional basing strategy.
Potential adjustments being weighed by planners include hardening core hub facilities, reducing exposure in vulnerable areas like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, shifting assets westward into the Levant, or moving toward a more resilient distributed network model.
Gulf States Still Caught Between War And Diplomacy
For Elisa Catalano Ewers, senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the CFR, the larger challenge is fundamentally political. She noted that while the Gulf states bore the brunt of Iran's attacks during six to seven weeks of hot conflict, the subsequent pause in fighting has done little to resolve the "core issues" driving regional instability, specifically Iran's ballistic missile capabilities, drone networks, and proxy forces, which were left out of the current MOU.
Ewers, who previously served on the National Security Council under the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, observed that the MOU does not look like a strategic victory for the Gulf. Instead of permanently degrading Iran's leverage, the current framework has left Tehran with newfound leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and a resumption of oil sales via US sanctions waivers.
SEE ALSO:
Mary Kissel: Iran's Nuclear Program Must Remain The FocusConsequently, Ewers described the MOU as "the best of bad options," leaving regional governments to hedge their bets by aggressively pursuing diplomatic de-escalation with Tehran while simultaneously trying to shore up their security coordination with Washington.
She remained highly skeptical that the 60-day negotiation window would yield a comprehensive breakthrough.
"The can gets kicked down the road," Ewers said, suggesting an extension of the current temporary arrangement remains the most likely outcome.
This assessment was strongly echoed by Robert Mogielnicki, nonresident fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute and Middle East Advisor at Teneo. He stated that his "base case" remains a continuation of the status quo interim agreement, likely extended multiple times, rather than a final, comprehensive deal.
Oil And Shipping Remain Central
The economic pressure behind the diplomacy remains significant. Vance has repeatedly linked the talks to stabilizing global oil supplies, and recovering shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is central to that effort.
At the CFR panel, Mogielnicki noted that maritime traffic through the Strait has dropped to roughly a third of pre-war levels. He warned that the economic disruptions across the Gulf remain deeply uneven.
Larger economies with diverse export routes and pipelines such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the UAE are better positioned to manage the headwinds. In contrast, countries like Qatar (which has suffered energy infrastructure damage), Bahrain, and Kuwait lack alternative export routes and remain highly vulnerable.
SEE ALSO:
Skepticism In Iran Over Israel-Lebanon Framework AgreementMogielnicki also highlighted a cruel twist in the conflict's economic fallout: economic diversification programs have not served as a safety net. Core non-oil sectors like tourism, aviation, and logistics hubs such as Dubai's Jebel Ali port have suffered severe operational disruptions and higher costs directly because of their proximity to the conflict zone.
Furthermore, the fiscal juggle to fund these diversification initiatives has grown increasingly strained. Mogielnicki pointed out that Saudi Arabia's recent budget revealed an unprecedented quarterly deficit of $34 billion due to rising investment spending and falling oil revenues, which recently tumbled from near triple digits down to around $70 per barrel.
A Temporary Framework, Not A Settlement
The broad consensus emerging from Washington is that the 60-day framework is highly unlikely to produce a final, comprehensive settlement. Instead, it is being utilized as a fragile mechanism for managing escalation while deeper structural disputes remain unresolved.
The most probable outcome remains a series of extensions to the interim arrangement. However, panelists at CFR emphasized that this creates a highly volatile landscape.
A return to open military confrontation remains a live possibility, whether triggered by a diplomatic collapse, regional proxy miscalculations, or unilateral military actions by Israel.
Ultimately, Votel warned that absent a fundamental and broader strategic understanding, the region's security landscape is poised to look exactly the same when the 60 days expire as it does today.
For Washington, the immediate hurdle is no longer ending an active war but preventing this diplomatic pause from becoming the mere prelude to the next conflict.