Vice President JD Vance is quietly emerging as a key player in potential Iran talks as Tehran signals it wants to deal directly with him, sources familiar with discussions told The Post — but the White House insists only President Trump gets to decide who negotiates for the US.
The behind-the-scenes insight positions Vance — long seen as a skeptic of foreign military entanglements — as a possible lead negotiator, reflecting both his growing clout inside the administration and a belief among Iranian officials that he represents a different kind of American interlocutor.
While Vance would reportedly be Iran’s pick for preferred negotiator, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Post that it’s Trump’s choice to decide who that will be — not Tehran’s.
“President Trump and President Trump alone decides who negotiates on his behalf,” she said. “As the president stated today, Vice President Vance, Secretary Rubio, Special Envoy Witkoff, and Mr. Kushner will all be involved.”
On Tuesday, The Guardian reported that Tehran officials didn’t want to deal with Special Envoy Steve Witkoff or Jared Kushner, who previously led talks with Iran, citing unnamed Iranian sources.
The newspaper also cited Pakistani sources listing Vance as the preferred alternate.
“This story is utterly false,” a White House official responded. “This obvious op sourced entirely to ‘anonymous sources’ is clearly a coordinated foreign propaganda campaign meant to undermine the president.”
US and Iranian government-level contacts are underway as both sides review lists of demands and potential concessions laid out in a 15-point plan.
Possible meeting locations under consideration include Turkey and Pakistan, though no formal talks have been finalized.
Pressed Tuesday about reports that Vance may take the lead in the talks with Tehran, Trump told reporters at the White House that discussions with Iran remained a team effort.
“Well, he’s involved in them — JD is involved, and Marco’s involved, and Jared Kushner is involved, very smart guy, and Steve Witkoff, smart guy, is involved,” he said. “And I’m involved.”
Iranian officials have grown wary of dealing with certain US envoys after previous rounds of negotiations collapsed and were followed by military strikes, the source said.
That track record has fueled a push inside Tehran to bypass traditional channels and instead engage Vance — a move that underscores both distrust of past diplomacy and a calculated bet on the vice president’s influence.
“They want to deal with the vice president because he’s anti-war,” the source said.
While Vance has been critical of past Middle East interventions, Vance has publicly backed Trump on the Iran war, saying: “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.”
The interest in Vance highlights his role in shaping US foreign policy — and could offer him a high-stakes opportunity to prove himself as a dealmaker on one of Washington’s most prominent conflicts, should Trump decide to give him the lead.
Whether a meeting ultimately takes place will depend on whether both sides can agree on terms — and overcome deep distrust built up over years of failed negotiations.
On the Iranian side, a potential counterpart could be parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps pilot and a prominent hardliner who has at times made “pragmatic” economic comments, according to the source.
But Iran, like the US, may have qualms with its opponent picking their negotiator, and any talks would still require approval from Iran’s supreme leader.
Tehran is seeking to avoid what it views as an unconditional ceasefire or surrender, instead aiming to negotiate from what it believes is a position of relative leverage.
“They think they’re winning in terms of pressure,” a source familiar with the Iranian regime’s thinking said, pointing to ongoing tensions affecting key regional waterways.
Regional dynamics are further complicating the diplomatic picture. Gulf states have largely declined to mediate, with Qatari officials rejecting an Iranian outreach unless Tehran halts attacks against Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Iran did not agree to those conditions, prompting Gulf states to step back.
As a result, Turkey and Pakistan have emerged as potential intermediaries, though their exact roles remain unclear.
Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations are also signaling a willingness to distance themselves from the diplomatic track, with discussions in Washington policy circles about whether regional partners could support future military action if talks fail.
Against that backdrop, Israeli officials are warning Western leaders not to ease pressure on Tehran.
Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli on Tuesday told The Post that allowing Iran to claim even symbolic success following recent military setbacks would embolden the regime.
“My personal view is that it would be a mistake,” Chikli said, referring to any easing of restrictions or shift in strategy. “Because it will allow the terror regime in Iran to show as if they have a significant achievement.”
The Israeli minister also voiced strong opposition to renewed diplomacy, rejecting the idea of negotiating with Iran’s leadership.
“I don’t believe in deals with this regime,” Chikli said, accusing it of massacring “tens of thousands of innocent civilians.”
“I would make an effort to make sure that there are zero achievements for the Iranian regime,” he added. “Even being able to remain in place, they can feel they had some type of achievement.”
Instead, he outlined a longer-term approach focused on weakening the regime internally and empowering Iranian citizens.
“When we opened the operation, we said very clearly that one of the goals is to create the conditions that will allow the Iranian people to gain back their freedom,” he said.
Still, he stressed that patience must be paired with a refusal to offer concessions.
“We need to make sure that we’re giving nothing to the Iranian regime,” he said, adding: “This regime must go — for the sake of the region, for the sake of the Iranian people.”
