Vance defends Trump's Iran position amid 'crazy stuff on social media'
Vice President JD Vance on Monday defended President Donald Trump's position on Iran in response to what he described as "crazy" accusations on social media.
"Look, I'm seeing this from the inside, and am admittedly biased towards our president (and my friend), but there's a lot of crazy stuff on social media, so I wanted to address some things directly on the Iran issue," Vance wrote on X.
He said Trump "has been amazingly consistent, over 10 years, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
"Over the last few months, he encouraged his foreign policy team to reach a deal with the Iranians to accomplish this goal. The president has made clear that Iran cannot have uranium enrichment. And he said repeatedly that this would happen one of two ways--the easy way or the 'other' way."
The vice president said he saw "a lot of confusion" online over the issue of "civilian nuclear power" and "uranium enrichment."
"These are distinct issues. Iran could have civilian nuclear power without enrichment, but Iran rejected that," Vance said. "Meanwhile, they've enriched uranium far above the level necessary for any civilian purpose. They've been found in violation of their non-proliferation obligations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is hardly a rightwing organization.
"It's one thing to want civilian nuclear energy. It's another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capacity. And it's still another to cling to enrichment while simultaneously violating basic non-proliferation obligations and enriching right to the point of weapons-grade uranium."
Vance said he's yet to see "a single good argument for why Iran needed to enrich uranium well above the threshold for civilian use" and "for why Iran was justified in violating its non-proliferation obligations."
"I've yet to see a single good pushback against the IAEA's findings," he wrote. "Meanwhile, the president has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military's focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens. He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president.
"And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue. And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish American people's goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus."
Trump on Tuesday took to TRUTH Social to call for an "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER" from Iran on the fifth day since Israel launched its preemptive attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and leadership.
The United States has been surging assets to the Middle East and reportedly helped Israel block Iranian counter-strikes.
Trump left the G7 summit in Canada early Monday to head back to Washington, D.C., for a Situation Room meeting on Iran Tuesday afternoon.
"We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding," Trump wrote earlier Tuesday in a social media post. "He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don't want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
Trump said Tuesday that the United States and Israel have "complete and total control of the skies over Iran."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
8 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is flirting with strikes in Iran. That could be a tough sell at home.
For years now, Americans have been trending in a more isolationist, anti-war direction. Particularly on the right, the ascendant view is that the world's problems are not necessarily ours. Iran could be about to test that. President Donald Trump has in recent hours employed increasingly bold rhetoric about involving the United States in Israel's attacks on Iran. On Tuesday afternoon, he wrote on Truth Social that 'we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He added that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is an 'easy target,' and said, 'We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He called for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.' These comments came as CNN reported he's indeed quickly warming to using the US military to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump has saber-rattled for effect before, so it's possible this is him employing the 'madman theory' of foreign policy again. But it's also evident that we're closer to a major new military confrontation than we've been in two decades. So how might Americans view it if Trump did involve the US military offensively? It's complicated. Americans have in recent years expressed plenty of worry about Iran and even support for hypothetical military strikes. But there is reason to believe military action today could be a bridge too far – for the same reasons Americans have been drifting away from foreign interventions. Much of the polling here is dated, and views are of course subject to change based on fresh circumstances. A 2019 Fox News poll is the most recent high-quality survey to ask directly about a situation like the one Trump is contemplating. And it found a significant level of support for using action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. American voters favored that 53% to 30% – a 23-point margin. The question from there is whether Americans would view that as indeed the purpose here. This is how Trump has billed potential strikes, saying Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon. But as recently as March of this year, his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified quite the opposite. She said that the intel community had assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump disputed Gabbard's account on Tuesday, but it's not difficult to see her words – and US intelligence assessments about the lack of imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapon – becoming a problem. That's particularly because America's last major military foray, into neighboring Iraq, became so unpopular due how the Bush administration exaggerated the threat it posed. Americans have appeared open to military action in theory. The question from there is how immediate they view that threat as being. Some surveys indicate Americans do tend to view Iran as a major threat – and on a bipartisan basis: The same Fox poll showed 57% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans called Iran a 'real national security threat.' A 2023 Fox poll showed more than 6 in 10 Democrats and about 8 in 10 Republicans were at least 'very' concerned about Iran getting a nuke. And Gallup polling last year showed 93% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats described Iran developing nuclear weapons as a 'critical threat' to the vital interests of the United States. But other surveys suggest that perceived problem might not rank particularly high. Pew Research Center polling last year showed many more Americans felt China (64%) and Russia (59%) were major military threats than Iran (42%). Pew data last year also found only 37% of Americans said limiting Iran's power and influence should be a 'top priority.' It ranked lower than limiting Russia and China's power and about the same as North Korea's – while also falling below limiting climate change. And back in 2020, just 14% of Americans thought Iran was such a threat that it required immediate military action, according to a CBS News poll conducted by SSRS. A huge majority felt it was a threat that could be contained (64%), while 17% said it wasn't a threat. All of these numbers could change if Trump goes down the path toward the US hitting Iran. He has shown an ability to get Republicans, in particular, to buy into pretty much whatever he says. (Though some prominent conservative voices like Tucker Carlson have strongly rejected the idea of strikes, meaning there could even be some resistance there). Anyway, it's likely we'd see these numbers polarize. But US intelligence assessments had concluded that not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon — in contrast to Israeli warnings — but that it was also up to three years from being able to produce and deliver one to a target, CNN reported Tuesday. Trump's history with Iran also looms here. In 2020, he launched a controversial strike that killed a top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani. And polling often showed people leaned in favor of the strike. But polling also showed Americans said by double digits that the strike made us less safe domestically. And a CNN poll at the time showed Americans disapproved of Trump's handling of the situation with Iran also by double digits, 53-42%. All of which indicates Americans are concerned about blowback and don't have a particularly high degree of faith in Trump's Iran policies. The sum total of the data suggest that, while Americans are concerned about the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they don't necessarily view it as an immediate problem necessitating the use of the US military. If someone asks you if you are worried about a nuclear foreign country, of course that sounds scary. You might even sign off on a hypothetical in which US military might be needed to combat that threat you fear. But it doesn't mean you think that's imminent enough to warrant putting US servicemembers in harm's way and setting off a major Middle Eastern war, today. And there's plenty of reason to believe Trump could – or at least should – approach this idea cautiously.
CNN
10 minutes ago
- CNN
Senate passes first-of-its-kind cryptocurrency legislation
The Senate passed first-of-its-kind bipartisan cryptocurrency legislation, called the GENIUS Act, after months of negotiations and weeks of back-and-forth between Democratic and Republican backers. The final tally was 68-30, with 18 Democrats voting yes, and two Republicans voting no. The bill now moves to the House for consideration. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer has called for the chamber's Financial Services Committee to advance stablecoin legislation by the end of July. The GENIUS Act aims to regulate stablecoin, a specific type of cryptocurrency that is tied to the US dollar. Despite bipartisan senators working on this bill for months, and general agreement across the Capitol that stablecoin regulation is necessary, the legislation has become a flashpoint for Democratic concerns with President Donald Trump's own cryptocurrency dealings. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, has consistently warned that the bill does not place sufficient guardrails on stablecoin, and alleged that the GENIUS Act would 'supercharge' corruption. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut has agreed that the bill needs stricter ethics guidelines, telling CNN's Dana Bash previously, 'If Congress passes a bill in the next few weeks that exempts the president of the United States from the ethics requirements around the issuance of cryptocurrency, then, yes, we will have no one to blame but ourselves for this, at least this, specific kind of corruption.' However, GOP Sen. Bill Hagerty, one of the lead co-sponsors of the bill, has insisted that 'this legislation is agnostic as to company, it's agnostic as to person.' 'This is simply about putting the United States of America on the best digital payments path that it possibly could be on,' the Tennessee Republican told reporters at the Capitol in May. 'This is about a payments currency, and it's about consumer protection, and it's about dollar dominance and Treasury dominance – that's all it's about. And there are a lot of superfluous questions going around but I think we've done a good job of answering those.' The Senate originally failed to advance the package after Democrats withheld their support due to concerns over Trump's cryptocurrency deals. Further bipartisan negotiations resulted in a new amendment draft that garnered enough support among Democrats to move the package forward.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Indexes end lower as Israel-Iran fighting raises investor anxiety
STORY: U.S. stocks closed lower on Tuesday, with the Dow dropping seven-tenths of a percent, the S&P 500 losing more than eight-tenths and the Nasdaq shedding nine-tenths of a percent. The Israel-Iran conflict raged on for a fifth day, with the U.S. military moving fighter jets to the Middle East and President Donald Trump calling for Iran's "unconditional surrender." Besides the conflict, investors are closely watching for any new information on Trump's tariffs, his tax-cut bill and U.S. interest rates. The Federal Reserve is expected to leave rates unchanged at the conclusion of its two-day policy meeting on Wednesday, despite ongoing pressure from Trump to lower them. Robert Conzo is CEO of The Wealth Alliance. 'I think [Fed Chairman] Jerome Powell wants to be independent from Trump. He wants to show I'm not going to be strong-armed by the government. I'm going to hold this until we're ready to drop it down. I'm not really sure why the Fed doesn't do a signalling cut of 25 basis points just to show that they're willing to do it. The rest of the world is cutting. We're in great shape. I'm not sure why he doesn't do that, but he's not. And there's no indication that in this particular round he's going to [cut rates].' Stocks on the move included solar companies which fell after Senate Republicans late Monday unveiled proposed changes to Trump's tax-cut bill, including a phase-out of solar, wind and energy tax credits by 2028. Enphase Energy tumbled 24% and Sunrun plunged 40%. Also, Eli Lilly shares dipped 2% after the company agreed to acquire Verve Therapeutics for up to $1.3 billion. Shares of Verve surged more than 80%. And shares of JetBlue fell almost 8% after its CEO told employees the airline will wind down underperforming routes and reassess the size and scope of its leadership team. The carrier also said it was unlikely it would break even this year, according to an internal memo seen by Reuters. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
