Why are Vance and Rubio divided on Iran and Lebanon? WION Decodes

As US President Donald Trump pushes ahead with an MoU with Iran, differences in public messaging from the VP and the State Secy have sparked questions about whether the administration is divided on its approach towards Iran, Israel and Lebanon.

The debate intensified after Trump came under criticism, particularly from pro-Israel politicians and advocacy groups, for signing the MoU with Iran. The agreement is intended to lay the groundwork for a broader peace deal, with Washington and Tehran having 60 days to negotiate a final agreement.

JD Vance, who led the negotiations with Iranian officials in Switzerland, embarked on a series of media appearances defending the agreement. He described the talks as making "good progress" and said they had established "a very good foundation" for a final deal.

Meanwhile, Rubio travelled across the Gulf to reassure regional allies concerned about the implications of the US-Iran understanding, while continuing to maintain a tougher public stance on Tehran.

What are the differences over Israel and Lebanon?

One of the clearest contrasts has been their public comments on Israel's military operations in Lebanon. Vance suggested that Israeli strikes on civilian infrastructure in Beirut were undermining US-led diplomatic efforts. Referring more broadly to Israel's military strategy, he said, "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 also urged Israel to avoid publicly criticising the Trump administration, saying Trump remained Israel's strongest international ally. Trump himself has also criticised Israeli strikes on civilian buildings, saying at the G7 summit that apartment blocks should not be targeted while pursuing individual militants.

According to the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, more than 4,000 people have been killed and 1.2 million displaced since Israeli attacks resumed on March 2.

Rubio adopted a different tone during his visit to the Gulf. Rather than criticising Israel, he defended its military campaign as a response to attacks by Hezbollah. When asked about Vance's remarks, Rubio avoided directly addressing the comments and instead referred to a recent Hezbollah attack on an Israeli checkpoint.

What about their positions on Iran?

Vance has consistently adopted a more conciliatory tone towards Iran. He has spoken about the possibility of Washington and Tehran building a more cooperative relationship that could "work together to promote peace and prosperity". He has also softened previous US positions on Iran's ballistic missile capabilities, arguing that no country should be denied the right to self-defence.

Rubio has maintained a firmer position. During his Gulf tour, he declared that Iran would not be allowed to impose tolls or fees on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most important energy shipping routes.