Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
11JUN

Vance rebuffs Netanyahu on regime change

2 min read
09:17UTC

The US Vice President told Israel's Prime Minister he was overselling regime change, then went on a podcast to declare victory and promise more war in the same breath.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Washington and Jerusalem are fighting different wars on the same battlefield.

Vice President JD Vance told the Benny Show podcast on 28 March that the war would continue "a little while longer" to ensure Iran is "neutered for a very long time." In the same interview, he claimed Iran's conventional military is "effectively destroyed" and a third of its missile arsenal gone 1. The two claims sit uneasily together.

In a tense phone call with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Vance knocked the Israeli leader for "overselling the likelihood of Iran regime change." US officials subsequently accused Israel of "smearing Vance" after the exchange leaked. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had told G7 ministers on 27 March that the war needs 2 to 4 more weeks , the first official acknowledgement the timeline has slipped. The 6 April deadline for strikes on Iran's power grid is now eight days away with no movement toward the conditions that would prevent it.

The fracture defines the war's trajectory. Israel wants the Iranian government replaced. The US wants nuclear facilities degraded and Hormuz reopened. These are different wars sharing a kinetic phase. Iran's asymmetric strategy exploits exactly this gap: without a unified strategic objective, every Iranian escalation forces Washington and Jerusalem to negotiate with each other before they can respond. That internal delay is itself a strategic advantage for Tehran.

The contradiction in Vance's own messaging (objectives met, war must continue) mirrors the broader alliance problem. If the mission is accomplished, the war has no mandate to continue. If it must continue, the mission is not accomplished. Both things cannot be true.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The United States and Israel are fighting in the same war but not for the same goal. The US wants to destroy Iran's nuclear programme and reopen the oil shipping lane at Hormuz. Israel wants the Iranian government replaced entirely. US Vice President JD Vance told a podcast the war has nearly achieved its aims, then told Israel's prime minister to stop claiming it would end with regime change. Those two positions contradict each other. This matters because Iran's strategy depends on keeping the two allies arguing with each other. Every time Iran escalates, the US and Israel first have to negotiate what to do about it before they can respond. That delay is exactly what Tehran wants.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The fracture originates in the two countries' different threat assessments. For Israel, Iranian regime survival is an existential threat; nuclear degradation alone leaves the regime intact and able to rebuild. For the US, regime change triggers occupation, reconstruction, and a nation-building commitment that Trump explicitly rejected.

Iran's asymmetric strategy deliberately exploits this gap. Every Iranian escalation (Houthi entry, aluminium strikes, university threats) forces Washington and Jerusalem to negotiate their response with each other before they can act. Internal US-Israeli negotiation is itself Tehran's most effective delaying tactic.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    The US-Israeli strategic divergence gives Iran time to lock in legal and domestic architecture around Hormuz before a unified allied response can be coordinated.

    Immediate · 0.8
  • Consequence

    If Vance's 'effectively destroyed' claim becomes the official US position, it narrows the justification for continued operations and risks Israeli unilateral escalation.

    Short term · 0.7
  • Precedent

    An alliance fracture at this stage normalises divergent war aims within the coalition, making it harder to agree on ceasefire terms.

    Medium term · 0.65
First Reported In

Update #51 · Iran hits aluminium plants; Hormuz emptying

Times of Israel· 29 Mar 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
Oil markets and Lloyd's of London
Oil markets and Lloyd's of London
Brent fell to $89.25 on ceasefire probability, not new barrels, with traders voting for Trump's deed over Tehran's denial. Lloyd's has not repriced Hormuz war-risk cover because its trigger requires a UN Security Council resolution or government certification, so tanker insurance costs remain elevated regardless of the spot move.
Pakistan and Qatar mediators
Pakistan and Qatar mediators
Pakistan's Mohsin Naqvi was in Tehran for his second visit in under a week, using the Pakistan-Qatar channel that delivered April's ceasefire after an identical public-denial cycle. The channel carries both civilian and military buy-in from Islamabad, the only configuration Iran's split command cannot dismiss as a partial signal.
India
India
India summoned the US Deputy Chief of Mission after three Indian sailors were killed aboard MT Settebello, the first formal grievance from a major non-belligerent directed at US enforcement. Indian seafarers supply roughly 12 per cent of the global maritime workforce; their presence on third-flag Gulf tankers is structurally inevitable regardless of bilateral diplomacy.
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
The IRGC declared Hormuz closed on 11 June while civilian negotiators were on the same mediation channel, then issued no public comment on the MoU framework. Its silence on the framework, rather than any foreign ministry statement, is the operative approval signal; the corps' unilateral Hormuz closure shows it did not treat the diplomatic track as binding on its operations.
Iran foreign ministry (Baghaei)
Iran foreign ministry (Baghaei)
Esmail Baghaei told IRNA that reports of a finalised deal were 'merely speculation' and that Iran had 'not yet made a final decision'. The denial is structurally identical to Iranian foreign ministry statements during the April ceasefire talks, which produced a binding text within 48 hours of the same language.
Trump administration / CENTCOM
Trump administration / CENTCOM
Trump cancelled the third strike day and called the MoU 'very strong' and almost ready to sign, while CENTCOM kept tanker enforcement running in the same 24-hour window. The administration is simultaneously withdrawing the military pressure it claims drove the deal and sustaining the enforcement campaign it is trying to trade away.