Vice President JD Vance is emerging as an unlikely central figure in the nascent diplomacy around the Iran war, with Tehran signaling through back channels that it would prefer to negotiate directly with him rather than other members of President Trump’s foreign policy team.

The Iranian preference for Vance — long known as a skeptic of American military entanglements abroad — reflects both his growing influence inside the administration and a calculated judgment by Iranian officials that the vice president represents a fundamentally different kind of American interlocutor. Iranian officials have grown distrustful of other U.S. envoys after earlier rounds of negotiations broke down and were followed by military strikes, a source told the NY Post.

“They want to deal with the vice president because he’s anti-war,” the source said.

The White House moved quickly to assert that the choice of negotiator is not Tehran’s to make. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump “and President Trump alone decides who negotiates on his behalf.” When pressed by reporters on whether Vance might take the lead, Trump characterized the effort as collaborative, naming Vance alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, senior adviser Jared Kushner, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff.

Reports indicate that Iranian officials specifically do not want to deal with Witkoff or Kushner, both of whom were previously involved in talks with Tehran. Government-level contacts between the two sides are nonetheless underway, with both countries reviewing lists of demands and potential concessions exchanged in recent weeks. Turkey and Pakistan are under consideration as possible meeting locations, though no formal talks have been scheduled.

Despite his well-documented reservations about Middle East interventions, Vance has publicly supported Trump on the Iran campaign. “I trust President Trump can get the job done, to do a good job for the American people, and to make sure that the mistakes of the past aren’t repeated,” Vance has said.

On the Iranian side, a potential counterpart in any talks could be Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps pilot and hardliner who has occasionally struck pragmatic notes on economic matters. But any negotiations would ultimately require the blessing of Iran’s supreme leader — and Tehran, like Washington, may bristle at the idea of its adversary selecting its negotiating partner.

Iran’s posture heading into any potential talks is one of defiance rather than capitulation. Officials in Tehran are seeking to avoid anything resembling an unconditional ceasefire or surrender, believing they hold a measure of leverage despite the damage inflicted by the American-Israeli campaign. “They think they’re winning in terms of pressure,” a source familiar with the Iranian regime’s thinking said, pointing to the ongoing disruption of key regional waterways.

Regional dynamics are complicating the diplomatic picture further. Gulf states have largely declined to serve as mediators. Qatar rejected an Iranian request to facilitate talks unless Tehran first halted attacks on Gulf Cooperation Council member states — a condition Iran refused. That impasse has pushed Turkey and Pakistan into potential intermediary roles, though neither country’s involvement has been formalized.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations appear to be distancing themselves from the diplomatic track. Policy discussions in Washington have turned to the question of whether regional partners might support further military action if negotiations fail. Israeli officials, for their part, are warning Western leaders against easing pressure on Tehran.

Whether talks materialize will depend on whether two governments separated by decades of mutual hostility and a rapidly escalating war can agree on basic terms — starting with who sits across the table.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)