JD Vance Archives - CrossFireArarbia

US-Israel Relations Toxic

CrossFireArabia
July 22, 2026

Zionists have now become so unpopular that the Vice President feels the need to appear critical of Israel.

The recent comments made by US Vice President JD Vance to Joe Rogan are indicative of just how toxic the Israel brand has become. Yet his comments have been largely pulled out of context in order to invent an image of a totally different politician to the man who is actually operating as America’s second in command.

In a recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience, JD Vance made some notable comments on Israel when pushed on the topic – ranging from admitting an Israeli Mossad connection to the infamous Jeffrey Epstein to Israeli interference in the negotiation process he led with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Understanding the nature of these comments first requires a little background information on who JD Vance actually is. This is a man whose political rise has largely been attributed to Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel.

Vance’s relationship with Thiel began to form back in 2011, when the German-American entrepreneur gave a speech at Yale Law School, which would lead to a relationship whereby Vance would be brought into the world of big tech and venture capital.

The Palantir co-founder later granted Vance $15 million dollars – the largest single sum ever donated to a Senate candidate – to buy him into politics. While JD Vance had previously criticized US President Donald Trump’s character vociferously, Thiel is credited with having successfully convinced Trump to make him his VP.

It is clear that Vance has broader political ambitions, including winning the Presidency in the future. Paramount to understanding his recent shift on the question of Israel is understanding all of this context. What has presented as a shift on the question of Israel began with the comments he previously made regarding Israeli opposition to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) the US briefly secured with Iran.

At the time, the Vice President had stated that those Israelis who had become critical of Washington’s strategy needed to “wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in”, after noting that the US taxpayer had footed the bill for defending it and reminding those critics that Donald Trump was their last true ally.

Again, on the Joe Rogan Podcast, he attempted to replicate this sentiment, but was subjected to follow-up questions which ended up making what he was trying to pull off fall flat.

While Vance has proven capable of questioning some Israelis and their supporters, he is deliberately ambiguous. This is because he is siding with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and trying to criticize the current Israeli opposition, without actually going as far as naming anyone consequential.

He even told Joe Rogan that Jeffrey Epstein was connected to both the CIA and Mossad, but made it clear that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barrack was responsible for coordinating with the convicted sex trafficker. The American official then tries to pass off the situation as if Netanyahu is an opponent of Epstein’s affiliates.

When discussing Israeli influence on the United States, he does not deny that it exists, but instead argues that this is normal and even tries to compare it to Qatar’s limited role in influencing Washington.

All this being said, it is clear that JD Vance is not making radical critiques of Israel; it is a strategy that hopes to put him on the record as having been a voice within the Trump administration who has pushed back against the disastrous pro-Tel Aviv policy choices.

What is significant about this, however, is that a politician like him feels it to be necessary to present himself as critical of the Israelis. It reflects a substantial shift in American politics across the board, especially amongst voters 35 years old and younger.

In the Democratic Party, the base has become so incredibly pro-Palestinian that taking contributions from AIPAC and stating a pro-Israel position has gone from being a net positive to now being a position that could even lose an establishment Democrat their position in Congress.

On the Republican side, there is still remaining support for Israel amongst its base, but the vast majority of these sentiments come from older voters. If you look at young Republicans, the picture is very different, and according to the polls, the 35-year-old and under bracket is gradually shifting more and more towards an anti-Israel position. There is, therefore, a need for even Republican candidates to begin treading a fine line on the issue.

For a large segment of American voters, a politician’s position on Israel is a primary indicator of whether they are genuine actors or not. If they are seen to be identifying with the Israel Lobby, the assumption is that they are not going to prioritize their constituents and instead will work to please the donor class.

It represents a radical change in US politics and is a major loss for the Zionists, who have now become so unpopular that the Vice President feels the need to appear critical of Israel in order to avoid committing political suicide.

– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

Opinion

US-Israel: More Than a Crack in Relations

CrossFireArabia
July 22, 2026

By Mohammad Abu Rumman

The significance of the recent vote in the U.S. House of Representatives does not lie in its immediate outcome. The amendment introduced by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie to suspend roughly $3.3 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel was defeated by a comfortable margin, 314 votes to 104. The real surprise, however, was that 103 Democratic lawmakers voted in favor of the proposal, representing more than half of the Democrats who cast either a “yes” or “no” vote. This is difficult to dismiss as a passing protest or as the position of the party’s progressive fringe alone.

The more revealing development is that a number of those lawmakers had, until recently, been considered acceptable allies by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), with several having previously received its endorsement and political support. Yet immediately after the vote, online fundraising for fifteen of those members seeking re-election quietly disappeared from AIPAC’s donation platform. Their names remained listed among “pro-Israel” legislators, but the financial pipeline had effectively been shut off.

Against this backdrop, Vice President J.D. Vance’s recent remarks become particularly significant. Vance did not merely criticize specific Israeli policies. Speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast, he accused elements within the Israeli government of attempting to derail U.S. negotiations with Iran and prolong the military campaign. He also referred to financial and political influence campaigns aimed at attacking American officials whose priority, in his view, was to place U.S. national interests above all else.

The debate over Israel is therefore evolving from two seemingly opposite directions that ultimately converge on the same question. Progressive Democrats approach the issue through the lens of Gaza, human rights, and the costs of unconditional American support. At the same time, an emerging current within the Republican populist right approaches it through the doctrine of “America First,” skepticism toward endless wars, and growing reluctance to see the United States become the permanent financier and guarantor of conflicts largely shaped by its allies.

This does not mean that either party is suddenly turning against Israel, nor does it suggest that the U.S.-Israel strategic alliance is on the verge of collapse. America’s military, intelligence, and institutional commitments remain deeply entrenched. What is changing, however, is the old bipartisan consensus.

Within the Democratic Party, divisions have become increasingly visible. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries opposed the amendment, while senior Democratic figures, including Nancy Pelosi and Katherine Clark, voted in favor of it. Even J Street—the liberal pro-Israel organization that opposed the amendment itself—acknowledged that the vote represented a politically significant moment.

Republicans, meanwhile, remain broadly supportive of Israel, particularly within the party’s traditional conservative and evangelical base. For precisely that reason, Vance’s comments provoked unusually fierce criticism from Republican politicians and conservative media, who viewed them as a departure from long-standing party orthodoxy. Yet the very existence of such a dispute suggests that Israel is no longer entirely beyond debate, even within the constituency historically regarded as its strongest American supporter.

Here lies the central paradox of the current moment. Benjamin Netanyahu sought to use the Gaza war to reshape the Middle East while capitalizing on what had become an unprecedentedly close relationship with the Trump administration. Yet Israel’s successive wars—from Gaza to Lebanon and later Iran—have produced an unexpected consequence: they have triggered a broader American conversation about costs rather than strategic necessity.

Increasingly, the central question in Washington is becoming less about Israel’s security and more about America’s own national interest. Why should the United States continue to bear the financial, military, political, and diplomatic costs of these conflicts? And who ultimately determines when America enters a war—or when it leaves one?

Even the personal relationship between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu has not escaped these contradictions. After a period of remarkable military coordination, differences emerged as Trump sought negotiations with Iran and an end to the conflict, while Netanyahu’s government viewed continued military pressure as an opportunity to pursue broader strategic objectives. What had appeared to be an exceptionally close partnership gradually evolved into a more complicated relationship marked by disagreements over ceasefires, Lebanon, and the parameters of any future understanding with Tehran.

Israel thus finds itself confronting a profound strategic paradox. It has reached perhaps the highest level of military integration with the United States in its history, while simultaneously experiencing one of the lowest levels of political acceptance among growing segments of the American public and political establishment.

The first major war fought in such close strategic coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv may well have achieved important military objectives. Yet it also accelerated the erosion of the old bipartisan consensus, reopening fundamental questions about money, influence, and the independence of American decision-making. In that sense, Israel may have won battles on the battlefield while beginning to lose something far more consequential in Washington.

The writer is a Jordan Times columnist

Analyses

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Saleem Ayoub Quna
June 22, 2026

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

The Epic Fury Operation launched by the US against Iran in February 2026, will go down in modern history as the first open military conflict, where a superpower like the United States, has willingly and openly played the role of a war-proxy, on behalf of its smaller ally, Israel.

The difference of attitude between the two close allies, US and Israel, in relation to what they perceived as Iran’s threat, imminent or potential, was a key factor behind the gradual crumbling of the American-Israeli coordinated military and intelligence efforts, to bring down the regime in Tehran.

Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing government, kept saying Iran posed an imminent existential threat to Israel, and therefore it must be brought down by force. While the US position was constrained by its previous international commitments on the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as stipulated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed between Iran and the P5+1 powers, during the administration of President Obama.

Since that moment Netanyahu kept vigorously urging, more likely lecturing the US and the West, on the dangers of the JCOPA agreement. When Donald Trump was elected President in 2017, things took an important and completely different turn. In the following year, he took the United States out of that internationally-backed deal as he had promised to do during his election campaign. He also kept his promises of moving the US Embassy to Occupied Jerusalem and recognize the occupied Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel.

These symbolic and important gestures, whetted Netanyahu’s appetite for more American concessions to Israeli demands.

Netanyahu’s golden opportunity came when Trump was re-elected to his second term in 2023, the same year when Hamas launched its massive assault on the Israeli settlements in the so-called “Gaza enevlope”. Other militias connected and supported by Iran, including the Houthis in north Yemen, Hezbollah in south Lebanon, Syria under the previous regime and Shia factions in Iraq coordinated their efforts to stand by Hamas during that long and unprecedented confrontation with Israel.

For its part, Iran did not shy from making it clear that it helped create this “chain” of resistance factions to encircle Israel from three directions.

The second turning magical point in the US position on the issue of direct military intervention against Iran came about when Israel succeeded in serving Hezbollah, the severest military blow ever, in the pagers’ operation and the subsequent assassination of Hezbollah’s top leaders, including its charismatic Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on Sept 27, 2024.

Trump was very impressed with all of that Israeli action and Netanyahu gave himself the full credit for this unexpected success.

Accordingly, Netanyahu’s plan to Trump was simple. Based on the Israeli accumulated intelligence and expertise on the Iranian internal scene and emulating its operation against Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon, accompanied by massive American air strikes would provide both allies with the best chance to finish the Ayatollahs in Tehran once and for all!

But as events unfolded, all of Netanyahu’s plans, personally and strongly endorsed by Trump and his military aides, suddenly started crumbling, one after the other. His relations with Trump slipped into stages of deterioration by the day and week as the closure of the Hormuz Strait by Iran, started hurting the world economy led by the US.

Here new red lights went on and the phone calls between the two men became more intense and vulgar. Then Trump decided to pass on the torch to his deputy, JD Vance, who seemed comfortable to tell Netanyahu what Trump avoided to do!

Conclusion: It is tricky to switch roles of allies in wars. A smaller entity can always stay safe as long as its leaders know the limits of their power and leverage. When people like Netanyahu think they have more power and clout than they actually have, versus their stronger ally, then irritation starts to brew, especially in the case of Trump who likes to show he is always in the driving seat. It also means that the leadership on the side of stronger partner has some problems of its own!

Whether it is a wrangle, rift, collision, divorce or worse between Trump and Netanyahu, we will not know for certain, until the negotiators in Switzerland close their files and head back home!

Analyses

Will The US-Iran Deal Last?

CrossFireArabia
June 17, 2026

By Ali Bakir

On June 15, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced via the US social media platform X that a peace deal between the US and Iran had been reached, following over two months of mediation by his country. Sharif expressed gratitude to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye for their significant contributions, stating that the official signing ceremony would take place on June 19 in Switzerland. Following this announcement, a memorandum of understanding was signed electronically by US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on the US side, and by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on the Iranian side.

The reported agreement is characterized as a framework peace deal aimed at ending the 2026 Israel/US-Iran war and transitioning the current ceasefire into a broader diplomatic process. Although the text of the agreement has not yet been published, key reported elements include immediate cessation of military operations, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, and a 60-day negotiation period to address unresolved issues, particularly Iran’s nuclear program, alongside discussions on sanctions relief and access to frozen Iranian assets during follow-up negotiations.

This agreement follows two significant developments. First, Israel conducted military strikes on Iranian targets in western and central Iran around a week ago, marking the first such actions since April. Explosions were reported in Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, and other cities in response to Iranian missile launches that were highly performative. Second, Trump warned that Iran would “pay the price” for what he described as slow progress in negotiations to end the conflict, indicating that the US could resume strikes against Iranian infrastructure.

5 bullet points on the agreement

Although the agreement does not necessarily mean that the root causes that prompted the war have fully disappeared, a few observations are worth mentioning and analyzing.

First, a lot of narrative spinning is occurring publicly at the moment. While the main parties are trying to sell the agreement as a victory, there are factions within the broader regional camps (such as hardliners in both Iran and Israel) that oppose it. Critics in Iran have labeled the agreement a “humiliating capitulation,” arguing that it involves unjustified concessions. Hardline opponents have publicly criticized the negotiating team, with Iranian MP Mahmoud Nabavian stating that the latest draft is “more damaging” than previous versions. Similarly, Israeli officials emphasized that Israel was not directly involved in negotiating the US–Iran deal and does not necessarily consider itself bound by its provisions. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that Israel would not withdraw from territory seized in Lebanon and would continue to act against threats from Hezbollah and Iran if necessary.

Second, the timing of the agreement suggests that Iran was running out of options. As the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) focused on messaging and performative measures, the gap between their narrative and reality widened, with Iran’s ability to endure further pressure significantly diminishing. Trump’s counter-blockade against Iran’s restriction of the Strait of Hormuz imposed significant economic costs on Iran, leading to the decision to sign the agreement. It is estimated that the blockade could have cost Iran over $24 billion in just two months — almost equal to Iran’s reported total reserves of foreign currency — leaving the regime with little choice but to agree to the terms or face economic collapse.

Third, despite the negative reactions from hardliners in both Iran and Israel, the agreement highlights Trump’s genuine interest in reaching a resolution with Iran, especially following last year’s swift 12-day war between Israel and Iran. However, radical elements in both Iran and Israel seem intent on using procrastination, escalation, or military actions to sabotage meaningful attempts to achieve peace. Given that there is reportedly a 60-day negotiation period following the signing of the agreement, it is likely that these factions will continue to work against a comprehensive resolution.

Fourth, while Pakistan played a significant role in the mediation process, Qatar’s involvement was also crucial, as acknowledged by American, Pakistani, Saudi, and Turkish officials. Notably, neither the Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman nor the ministry itself reported any independent measures taken by Qatar, apart from endorsing Pakistan’s mediation efforts. In fact, a Qatari spokesman denied any independent role in the mediation at this stage. Qatar’s involvement appears to have been executed at the request of the United States and had several dimensions.

Primarily, Qatar facilitated technical issues between the US and Iran, such as enabling the transfer of Iranian funds without direct US involvement, thereby avoiding the perception of it being a US initiative or taxpayer-funded. Additionally, Qatar played a role in establishing a communication channel between the United Arab Emirates and Iran, which emerged later in the mediation process. Finally, Qatar aligned itself with Saudi Arabia’s position, providing support for the Pakistani initiative.

Changing actors

Fifth, two awkward positions regarding the agreement can be highlighted. Firstly, the Europeans have been largely inactive in resolving the crisis yet somehow managed to host the official signing ceremony between the Americans and Iranians. Instead of crediting Pakistan, Switzerland offered to host the ceremony, which can be seen as an act of opportunism. Secondly, Oman, historically a favored mediator between the US and Iran, has been notably absent from this current arrangement. Oman’s position during this war was not popular in the Gulf Cooperation Council and beyond. According to a senior US administration official, Oman was removed from its mediation role in negotiations with Iran after the US concluded that Muscat had acted “very duplicitously” during the talks.

Finally, we must approach the prospects of the agreement with caution. It is essential to recognize that this is not a comprehensive peace agreement but rather a transitional framework. The future of the agreement will largely depend on the outcomes of negotiations in the next 60 days. Given that several factions within Iran and Israel are opposed to the agreement, we should not dismiss the possibility of sabotage, particularly from Israel.

Ali Bakir is an assistant professor of international affairs, security, and defense at Qatar University and senior nonresident fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. Anadolu

Opinion

An Unholy War!

CrossFireArabia
April 23, 2026

By Robert Stephen Ford

Presidents and popes have disputed wars in the past. Pope Paul VI criticized the American war in Vietnam, saying that America was losing its moral standing. Pope John Paul II called the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 unjust and illegal. However, the clash between US President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV, who are the two most influential Americans in the world, about the war against Iran is without precedent.

The rift that preceded the war

The relations between the Vatican and the Trump administration were difficult even before the Iran war. Before the appointment of Pope Leo, Pope Francis in 2025 criticized Donald Trump’s restrictions against immigration and the treatment of refugees and immigrants in American detention centers. In January 2026, three top Catholic Church leaders in the United States issued a report stating that American foreign policy was immoral. They pointed to reduced assistance to world health programs that have harmed tens of millions of people worldwide.

The American surprise attack on Iran on February 28 sharpened the dispute between the Vatican and the White House. The Trump administration portrays the war as a kind of holy crusade blessed by God. In his April 7 social media message threatening to destroy Iranian civilization, Trump exclaimed, “Glory to God!” while also saying that God ensured the success of the mission to rescue an American pilot whose plane was shot down over Iran. On March 26, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told a press conference that military strikes against Iran enjoyed protection from God, and at a religious service in the Pentagon on April 1, he quoted from the Old Testament, asking God to “break the enemy’s teeth.”

The Pope responded on April 6 that Jesus called for peace and reconciliation, and he rejected politicians using God to justify war. His rebuke generated sharp counterattacks from Trump and some Republican Party leaders. Vice President JD Vance and Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson said the pope appeared not to understand the Catholic Church theory of just war. Several American bishops close to Pope Leo responded that it was ridiculous to suggest that the pope did not understand the theology and the theory of just war since Leo himself is from the branch of the Catholic Church founded by Augustine, the Christian thinker who, 1,600 years ago, first set down the principles of a just war. The surprise American attack in the middle of negotiations, the American failure to avoid striking civilian targets and the ambiguous American government goals of the Iran war did not meet the standards of a just war, they noted.

Politics dressed as theology

Trump and the Republicans are politicians, not theologians. They portray the war against Iran as holy because they understand that the war is unpopular in the United States and they need the support of Christian conservatives in their political base. Notably, most Catholics, who are about 20% of the American population, voted for Trump in 2024. Opinion polls since late March have shown that most Americans doubt the war is in America’s national interests. After Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilian infrastructure and civilization on April 6-7, the pope called the threats “unacceptable” and would violate international law. He even urged American citizens to contact their representatives in Congress to demand that the war stop. It was unprecedented for a pope to urge Americans to mobilize this way, and it directly touched a big part of the Republican Party base. Trump responded five days later with his social media message alleging that the pope appears to accept that Iran can have nuclear weapons and does not understand foreign policy. No American president had attacked a pope so personally. With economic damage from the Iran war and opinion polls indicating Democratic Party victories in the November congressional elections, the White House and Republicans are especially sensitive to criticisms towards their war policy.

The pope enjoys a big advantage over Trump in opinion polls in the United States, and Trump over the past four days has retreated a little. He said on April 16 that while he respected the pope’s right to say what he thinks, Trump insisted that he would continue to say and do what he thinks is right. The pope, meanwhile, said on April 18 that he did not want to debate the president. The pope’s role in the end is not to descend to politics but rather to stay on a high level focused on how people should live according to the principles of Christianity. This round of arguments has been winding down, but the Trump administration’s use of Biblical scripture and symbols to justify controversial policies will trigger new fights with the Catholic Church in the months ahead, especially if the war escalates.

The writer is a former US Ambassador to Algeria and Syria and contributed this article to Anadolu