Vance’s Diplomacy Does Not Erase Responsibility

The hardest part of a war can come after the decision to enter it. American forces become exposed to attack. Their protection requires more action. Each exchange supplies another reason to remain, and the original question—whether the commitment served the country—gets pushed aside by the immediate danger to the Americans already there.

The Iran war presents that danger now. A president can find reasons for another strike more easily than he can explain how the next one will bring the commitment to an end.

NBC News reports that some of President Donald Trump’s advisers have urged him to restart major combat operations before the incoming Democratic-controlled Congress takes office in January. The report’s opening attributes that advice to two unnamed U.S. officials. Trump has not been shown to have accepted their recommendation or ordered that campaign.

The reported advice still deserves scrutiny. What military objective becomes more achievable because Congress has fewer weeks to question it? What threat requires action before Jan. 3 that would not justify an honest explanation to the representatives taking office that day?

Congress possesses war powers today. January changes its membership and political control. A president who believes a larger campaign is necessary owes the country a case that can survive congressional examination on either side of that date.

Alongside the threats comes another account of the administration’s work. Axios reports that Vice President J.D. Vance has spent two weeks involved in indirect talks with Iran through regional mediators, including Qatar and Pakistan. The effort seeks a new ceasefire and renewed nuclear negotiations.

Trump described the alternative Thursday in the Oval Office:

“I would rather not destroy the rest of the country if possible, but maybe I will have to.”

That public contrast offers a politically convenient picture: Trump associated with further destruction, Vance associated with finding an agreement. The vice president could receive credit for restraint while the president absorbs blame for escalation. No secret arrangement is required for that picture to benefit Vance. The danger is that Americans accept the division of responsibility along with the division of roles.

Vance’s work may be sincere. Qatar’s prime minister says a deal remains possible, and Axios reports that Trump presently wants to allow diplomacy to proceed. The strongest defense of this approach is that credible military pressure may help negotiations and American personnel require protection while those negotiations continue. Those arguments deserve a hearing.

Friday’s strike on Qeshm Island shows the difficulty. According to Axios, an Iranian anti-aircraft launcher fired toward an American fighter jet, and the United States struck the launcher. Trump confirmed limited strikes. A defensive response can have an immediate purpose even while the larger deployment leaves the country facing the same unresolved questions.

The protection of an American pilot does not explain what a renewed major campaign would accomplish. A successful strike against a launcher does not establish an achievable settlement. The administration must explain the connection between its next military action and an end to the commitment.

Vance has a particular responsibility here. His office belongs to him through election for a constitutional term. Trump cannot simply fire him for dissent as he could a White House aide serving at his pleasure. The Constitution provides for a vice president’s removal through impeachment and conviction; disagreement with the president does not itself give the president a dismissal power.

That independence leaves room for a public objection, although it cannot spare Vance political consequences. His private advice cannot be reconstructed from a news account, and his diplomatic role does not establish what he has supported or resisted behind closed doors. His position does give him an independent duty to explain what he believes the country should do.

The presidency carries the command authority and the principal responsibility for military decisions. The vice presidency carries its own public obligations. Vance cannot reasonably receive all the benefit of being the administration’s negotiator while being treated as a spectator to its decisions about war.

An America First judgment should begin with the Americans whose lives and resources are committed. What threat must be stopped? What result can additional force realistically secure? What agreement would be acceptable? What conditions would allow American forces to leave safely?

Those questions leave room for a negotiated peace and for the defense of Americans in danger. They also require a judgment about whether another offensive would make the country safer or prolong its exposure.

Americans can welcome every genuine effort Vance makes toward peace and still hold him responsible for his part in this administration. Your right to demand an answer survives the election, the next strike and every change in Washington’s presentation. American families deserve leaders who can explain how their loved ones come home.