JD Vance makes his case to Israel: Why Trump’s Iran deal could be good for the Jewish state

Peloni: Vance’s claim of don’t Trust, just Verify, and then only reward good behavior is entirely undone by the fact that the MOU provides the lifting of sanctions days before the Strait of Hormuz was ever going to be opened, and as the Strait was not opened on time, what was Vance’s response?  To pressure Israel.  So Vance is correct, we should not look at what people say, and focus on their actions, but even in the opening window of the negotiations using this blighted MOU, it has been Vance’s position that Israel will compromise under the ire of Washington’s criticisms so as to appease the Iranians into even begin fulfilling their first obligation under the MOU, which was simply to meet with Vance.  This deal is very bad, but so too are the management skills being employed by Vance and his team in even starting the negotiations with the Iranians.

Part Two of the interview follows at bottom.

Part One of an exclusive interview: US VP Vance explains why the administration believes diplomacy offers best path to preventing a nuclear-armed Iran

David Brody | All Israel News |  Published: June 18, 2026

Screengrab via Youtube

U.S. Vice President JD Vance knows he’s got a tough sell on his hands.

The agreement between the United States and Iran is already generating major skepticism in Israel and among many pro-Israel conservatives in America. It all makes sense since, for decades, Iran has existed as an existential threat to the Jewish state. That’s why any deal involving Tehran immediately raises red flags.

Yet Vance, alongside Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and senior advisor Jared Kushner, is making a direct case that this agreement could ultimately benefit Israel rather than harm it.

The White House believes Iran is operating from a position of weakness after years of economic pressure, regional setbacks, and internal instability. Administration officials argue that this moment presents a rare opportunity to pursue a broader regional arrangement that could lower tensions while strengthening security for multiple countries in the Middle East.

In short, Vance and the White House are betting on Gulf Arab States cooperating to box Iran in and, in turn, make the region and Israel much safer.

I met with Vice President Vance on Wednesday on Long Island, New York, and interviewed him on a myriad of issues. This is Part One and you can find Part Two here.

When it came to Israel, I asked him about Israel’s role in the broader struggle between good and evil in this current conflict and whether he viewed Israel as being on the right side of that battle.

“I think it’s important to say, look, Israel’s been a great partner through this and we’ve got a lot of shared interests,” Vance told me. “If you go back to the early 2000s, when we were first confronting the Islamist radicalism and terrorism problem, obviously we actually had some very important Gulf allies. But the Israelis have been important partners. And then even going back before that, there were other things that we were working on together.”

“What I think is also true is that sometimes the United States and Israel are going to have disagreements. And I think that what some people say as well, because the United States and Israel have disagreements somehow, Israel’s bad, the United States is good, or vice versa,” Vance continued. “Sometimes you see people in Israel, even after all the president of the United States has done for that region, they’re attacking the president because they don’t like this deal, even though a lot of them don’t know what’s in the deal.”

“I think that what is true here is if you go back to Eisenhower and General Montgomery in World War II, people can work together, have shared interests, but also have disagreements from time to time.”

 

“I really feel when the people of Israel get to know this deal and hopefully trust what the president is able to accomplish for the region, they’re going to see this is good for the people of Israel,” Vance said.

He also said that Israel is a great country with amazing people. “We have a lot of friends who live there.”

“It’s going to be good for the people of Israel. It’s going to be good for the whole region,” he said.

Vance is essentially asking Israelis and pro-Israel Americans to trust the Trump administration’s broader vision for the Middle East.

His argument is not that Israel and America will agree on every detail. Rather, he contends that the final outcome will leave Israel safer and the region more stable. Whether Israelis embrace that argument remains a serious open question.

Of course, one major sticking point involves Lebanon and the ongoing threat posed by Hezbollah.

Israel has maintained military positions in parts of southern Lebanon because of security concerns and fears that Hezbollah could once again establish offensive capabilities near Israel’s northern border.

Critics of any agreement involving Iran worry that Tehran could use diplomatic gains to strengthen its regional proxy network, including Hezbollah.

I pressed Vance on reports suggesting that Iran wants Israel to leave southern Lebanon as part of broader regional negotiations. He rejected the idea that the agreement itself contains provisions forcing Israel to withdraw.

“First of all, the deal doesn’t talk about Israel getting out of southern Lebanon or not, but I actually think that Israel would love to get out of southern Lebanon so long as the Hezbollah threat was gone,” Vance says.

“We want to be very clear: Israel is allowed the right of self-defense. Nobody’s going to tell another government they’re not allowed to defend their people. But we are going to work aggressively, diplomatically on this peace process. The people of Lebanon want sovereignty and safety. The people of Israel want sovereignty and safety. That’s part of the work of diplomacy and, frankly, because the Iranian regime is so weak, we’ve got a better opportunity to work on that problem successfully than we’ve had in a very long time,” he concluded.

In Part Two of my exclusive interview with Vice President JD Vance, he responds to skeptics’ biggest questions: Can Iran be trusted? How will the administration verify compliance? And how will it prevent Tehran from continuing to finance Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist proxies?

---

The Iran deal and the Islamic theology of deception: What JD Vance told me

Part Two of an exclusive interview: Vance addresses whether Tehran can be trusted and how the White House plans to verify Iran’s compliance

David Brody | All Israel News | Published: June 19, 2026

For decades, U.S. presidents from both parties have tried to negotiate with Tehran. Each time, supporters of Israel have raised the same concern: Are Western leaders treating the Iranian regime like a normal nation-state when, in reality, its leaders often operate through a very different ideological and theological framework?

Many Evangelical Christians and pro-Israel advocates argue that understanding Iran isn’t just about understanding geopolitics. It’s also about understanding the religious worldview that drives the regime.

That’s why I put the question directly to U.S. Vice President JD Vance during my exclusive interview with him this week.

In Part One of the interview, published on Thursday, he and I discussed why the Trump administration believes a new nuclear agreement with Iran could ultimately strengthen Israel’s security. However, many supporters of Israel remain unconvinced.

The issue wasn’t simply whether Iran says it won’t build a nuclear weapon. The issue was whether the administration understands the deeper concerns many critics have about trusting anything the regime says.

“I want to ask about the theological part of this,” I told Vance. “So, for example, Iran says they’re not going to build a nuclear weapon. Sure. Right. That’s like a kind of a chronic thief saying, trust me again.”

I then raised concerns frequently discussed by some scholars, Evangelical leaders, and Middle East analysts.

“So it kind of goes to the theological issues within Islam, specifically the way the regime sees it. Taqiyya, which basically allows you to lie, in righteousness, if you will. There is Hudaybiyya, the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, which Muhammad signed in the sixth century, which basically is a way for them to retool and to rearm. And this is part of their mindset. How concerning is that to you?”

“Well, I certainly hope that they’re not lying,” he replied. “But it’s not concerning to me because I don’t really trust anybody.”

That response may offer the clearest window yet into how U.S. President Donald Trump approaches negotiations with Iran.

Rather than trusting Iran’s words, Vance says the White House intends to focus exclusively on Iran’s actions.

“And I think this is one of the things the president has told us to do in this negotiation,” Vance explained. “Don’t trust any words that are written on paper.”

For an administration trying to convince skeptical conservatives, Evangelical Christians, and supporters of Israel, that may be the central argument.

Trust isn’t required. Verification is.

According to Vance, every meaningful benefit Iran receives under the agreement is tied to what it actually does, not what it says. That remains to be seen, but that’s the public posture at this point.

He continued, “Which is why I think both the good things for America and also the good things for Iran fundamentally only happen through action,” he said. “And that’s what we have set this up to do.”

The vice president described the framework in straightforward terms.

“So if they do things, then they get things. If they don’t do anything, then they don’t get any of the benefits of the bargain.”

That sounds simple enough on paper. Yet critics of Iran would quickly point out that Tehran has spent decades mastering the art of saying one thing while doing another.

Vance acknowledged that reality.

“I am sure that there are people within their system who are not telling us exactly what’s on their mind,” he said. “That’s just the way that these things go.”

Yet he returned again to what appears to be the administration’s guiding principle.

“But that’s why the president has told us don’t reward good words, reward good conduct. If that happens, and if not, no skin off our back.”

The White House argument appears to be that America is not being asked to trust Iran. America is being asked to verify Iran.

Still, for many supporters of Israel, another major concern remains.

Even if Iran refrains from pursuing a nuclear weapon, what happens if it continues financing groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terror proxies across the Middle East?

After all, Israel’s biggest concern is not just Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it’s also the regime’s ability to fund and arm forces throughout Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

So I asked Vance directly about the benchmarks.

“What about the benchmarks to make sure that Iran is not funding some of these proxies?” I asked. “How do you measure that?”

Vance argued that the answer may be more straightforward than many people think.

“You know, it’s just something that you’re going to see,” he replied.

He then pointed to the Hezbollah terrorist organization in Lebanon as an example.

“One of the things that actually has made Hezbollah, for example, much weaker over the past couple of months, obviously, is the Israeli military action,” Vance said. “But a lot of it is the money that existed just is not flowing to them because the Iranian regime has been under such stress.”

Then came perhaps the administration’s strongest argument for why it believes it can monitor the regime’s behavior moving forward.

“If we see the Iranians sending money to Hezbollah, it’s going to be obvious,” Vance said. For critics, that may sound overly optimistic.

For the administration, it reflects confidence in American intelligence capabilities. “It’s one of these things where we have very good intelligence, we have very good knowledge of what’s going on on the ground,” Vance explained.

That intelligence, he believes, will provide a clear picture of where Iranian money is ultimately going.

“So we feel quite confident that we’re going to be able to tell whether the Iranians, whether they’re funding terrorism or whether they’re funding power plants and infrastructure,” Vance said. “We’re going to know either way.”

Whether Israel’s supporters are reassured by that answer remains an open question.

---