The Iran War, Rubio, and Vance

There are any number of indications that the United States-Israel war against Iran is going badly for the United States. Simply consider that one of the most important issues for ending the war — opening the Strait of Hormuz — did not exist prior to the war because the strait had previously been open. In addition, almost no progress has been made towards eliminating Iran's nuclear program. But one of the strongest signals is the fact that almost nobody among top Republicans, with the exception of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, is vocally championing the war. As the expression goes, success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. For the most part, the Iran war is an orphan and nowhere is that more obvious than when it comes to the two Republicans most likely to pursue the presidency after Trump. Both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President and reply guy JD Vance are doing all that they can to distance themselves from the war.

Rubio might be the more notable of these two. In addition to serving as Secretary of State, Rubio is also cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump's National Security Advisor. Arguably, Rubio has failed in both roles and, as such, should be expected to be the target of considerable criticism. However, Rubio mostly appears to have simply disappeared. One might be required to look under Rubio's bed to find him hiding there.

A recent Politico article described the job of the National Security Advisor as:

That role, as traditionally defined, ensures that U.S. national security decisions are fully thought out, and that the entire U.S. government is coordinating and prepared for, say, going to war. That can include checking whether U.S. agencies and departments are engaging other capitals or affected parts of the private sector, such as oil companies.

Politico went on to say:

From the start of the Iran operation on Feb. 28, however, it was clear there was little such planning or collaboration. The U.S. has been caught flat-footed on everything from the spike in oil prices to drones targeting U.S. embassies. Senior Trump aides don’t even seem to have coordinated their talking points; Hegseth, for instance, keeps making religious references, while top intelligence officials can’t provide a clear answer on whether Iran posed an imminent threat to the U.S.

It is very clear that the Iran war was not well thought out, was poorly planned, and was launched without clear-cut objectives. The U.S. has cycled through a number of justifications for the war and now appears to have settled on the goal being to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. This directly contradicts repeated claims by Trump that Iran's nuclear program was obliterated last summer. All of these failures should rightly land at the feet of Rubio. But Rubio has done his best to keep his head down and to stay out of the limelight where the war is concerned.

As Secretary of State, Rubio has also failed. He is nowhere near the negotiations aimed at reaching an agreement to end the war. That job has been tasked to real estate investor Steve Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. In his one foray into explaining why the U.S. launched the attack, Rubio blamed it on Israel. That sparked a controversy from which Rubio had to back down. It is the job of the Secretary of State to work with allies to gain their support. In the Iran war, beyond Israel, the U.S. practically stands alone. In both his roles, Rubio has essentially been invisible. Rubio's disappearance is obviously deliberate. If things were going well, we would expect him to be front and center in the spotlight. Clearly, things are not going well.

Vance is in a different situation altogether and has been very visible. This is ironic because the Vice President should not have a role to play in a war. The VP's job is to attend funerals for foreign leaders and to be prepared to step in for the president if necessary. If there were someone who should be invisible, it is Vance, not Rubio. Moreover, Vance has been given the job of combatting fraud. So, he should have his hands full. Instead, Vance gets considerably more attention when it comes to the war than does Rubio.

Part of the reason that Vance gets more publicity is likely due to his own efforts to get press coverage. There is an informal rule in Washington, D.C. that news sources get good coverage. Reporters don't want to lose access, so they treat those who provide them information kindly. Vance has clearly wanted it known that he had misgivings about the war from the start. Therefore, while he publicly supports Trump and the war, behind the scenes he is clearly telling reporters about his doubts, and reporters are dutifully passing that message on.

One example is a New York Times article headlined, "How Trump Decided to Go to War," that described the administration's decision-making in the lead-up to the war. The article first describes Vance as "a longtime skeptic of American military interventions in the Middle East" and later said that he "appeared to personally lean against military attacks". While Vance is ultimately identified as pushing for the type of large-scale attack that was eventually launched, the article makes clear that he reluctantly took this position as the least bad option for war.

Similarly, an article this week in The Atlantic portrayed Vance as a skeptic about the war's progress. The article begins by saying that "J. D. Vance has repeatedly questioned the Defense Department’s depiction of the war in Iran and whether the Pentagon has understated what appears to be the drastic depletion of U.S. missile stockpiles." The article went on to say:

A White House official told us that Vance “asks a lot of probing questions about our strategic planning, as do all of the members of the president’s national-security team.”

The article further noted that "The vice president was skeptical about the merits of attacking Iran before the war started".

While much of this article appears to be aimed at promoting Vance as being a war skeptic, there is likely another purpose behind the report. Throughout the article, Vance is described as questioning the rosy portrayal of the war normally provided by Hegseth. Hegseth and Vance are engaged in a behind-the-scenes battle involving Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll. Driscoll was a Yale classmate of Vance's and a longtime friend. Driscoll was appointed to his position based on Vance's recommendation. Driscoll and Hegseth have had a number of disagreements, and many suspect that several of the recent Pentagon firings that Hegseth has conducted were aimed at weakening Driscoll.

As Trump grows increasingly bored and frustrated with the war, he is likely to look for scapegoats. Hegseth is the most likely target. Vance, by planting articles such as that in The Atlantic, is likely attempting to increase Trump's distrust of Hegseth and to position Driscoll as Hegseth's successor. At the same time, Vance is increasing his own profile as a war skeptic. Vance has also been involved in negotiations with Iran, stepping in when there appears to be a chance to make progress, but stepping back when the talks become more difficult. If there is ever an agreement, Vance will likely be there to take credit for it.

Both Rubio and Vance clearly see that the war against Iran is going badly and are trying to distance themselves from it. Rubio's strategy appears to be to simply hope that everyone forgets about him. Trump, by dominating the spotlight, is making that goal fairly easy. Vance, on the other hand, is hoping to steer blame for the war to Hegseth and to portray himself as having always been against the war. If Vance ends up negotiating an agreement with the Iranians, he will bolster his credentials in an area in which Rubio’s should have been leading.

It is notable that just two months into the war, both Rubio and Vance seem to have decided that it is a losing proposition and have turned to looking after their own reputations. Rubio has gone into witness protection and is nowhere to be seen. However, in the unlikely scenario that the war becomes popular, he could easily emerge as a war proponent. Vance, on the other hand, appears to have already played his hand and decided that the role of a war skeptic is best suited for the future. In reality, neither Rubio nor Vance is very impressive and neither is willing to challenge Trump. As a result, both will continue to suffer from Trump's whims. Regardless of the machinations in which they engage now, both Rubio and Vance will be unlikely to escape Trump's shadow.