Vance

Over the past week, Washington and Tehran have sent mixed signals about whether their eight-month war is heading back to full-scale strikes or towards a peace deal.

On Thursday, the head of United States Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral Brad Cooper, briefed US President Donald Trump on options for renewed attacks on Iran, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported.

The US and Israel have drawn up joint plans to attack Iran after the November 3 US midterm elections, The New York Times (NYT) reported last week.

Yet on the same day, The Washington Post reported that Vice President JD Vance had offered to meet Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, in person to negotiate an end to the war.

On Friday, Qatari mediators returned to Tehran for talks coordinated with the US, an official told Reuters.

So is Washington heading back to war, or towards a deal? Here’s what we know:

Why are there conflicting reports?

Essentially, Washington is preparing for war while keeping a diplomatic channel open.

The WSJ reported that the US has boosted air defences and munitions in the region and moved some troops away from bases vulnerable to Iranian retaliation.

Ten US military cargo planes landed at the Ovda and Nevatim air bases in Israel’s Negev region on Thursday, with more sent to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the Israeli public broadcaster Kan reported.

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who said he had been briefed on the plans, called them “insane” and warned of a devastating escalation.

Can diplomatic efforts hold off a return to strikes?

Diplomacy has not stopped.

Vance’s letter, delivered to Rezaei through Qatari mediators on Sunday, proposed direct talks led by Vance, with Iran’s nuclear programme on the table from the start, according to the NYT, in a bid to prevent a renewal of strikes.

Whether it might have any influence over what happens next is a matter for debate. Rouzbeh Parsi, an Iran analyst who is an affiliated researcher at Lund University’s Department of History and Human Rights Studies in Sweden, described Vance as the “voice of reason” on Iran within the Trump administration, saying his signals have been “the least volatile and unpredictable”.

But he also told Al Jazeera that Vance’s position has “never proven to be sturdy enough to actually sway Trump”.

“Thus, while the optics with Vance look better than anyone else in the Trump administration, I doubt that they [Iranian officials] give the outreach much credence until Vance proves able to actually deliver something on his own,” he said.

Furthermore, Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera that “Rezaei is just one voice among many” adding that the “reality is that decisions are made collectively inside the Islamic republic”.

Wolfgang Pusztai, a security and defence analyst and Austria’s former defence attache to Libya, has a different view, however, telling Al Jazeera, “There is no doubt that the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] currently calls the shots in Iran.”

In February, Iran’s then supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in the initial attacks by Israel and the United States, and his son became the new supreme leader, but Pusztai says he “simply does not have the influence his father did”.

“Without the IRGC’s approval, there will be no agreement with Iran,” Pusztai said, adding it is safe to assume that when Rezaei makes a statement or endorses a proposal, “it reflects the position of the IRGC leadership” and that the US was “absolutely right to negotiate with him”.

Pusztai said it is unclear whether Rezaei is indeed ready to make a serious compromise, but under sustained US pressure, Rezaei, who holds a doctorate in economics, could come to see that “Iran’s interests and the regime’s survival can be better secured without nuclear weapons and through a less aggressive foreign policy”.

“He certainly knows that peak oil is approaching and that time is running out for Iran’s economic recovery through the use of its oil revenues,” he said.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said progress depends on Iran’s seven conditions being met – including the lifting of sanctions, ending the US naval blockade of Iranian ports, guarantees to an end to US-Israeli strikes, and the unfreezing of Iranian assets – adding that the “carrot-and-stick approach has no effect on Iran”, according to the semi-official Tasnim news agency.

Vance, meanwhile, told Fox News on Thursday that Trump would “never” let the conflict become “a forever war”.

Which of all these signals matter most?

The diplomacy may say more than the threats.

Andreas Krieg, an associate professor of security studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera that Vance’s offer of direct talks “suggests that the Americans do have second thoughts” and that they are less ready to strike than they publicly suggest.

But he warned that Cooper, whom he called “quite hawkish”, could give Trump false confidence “that there is a military way out of it, when in reality there isn’t a military way out of it”.

“This idea that there is a short and crisp military operation to solve this issue is obviously an illusion,” he said.

Paul Musgrave, an associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera the White House could be sending signals to coerce Tehran, but that “the better interpretation is the simplest one”.

He believes “the United States is getting ready to carry out substantial attacks relatively soon”. He said he does not expect Washington to accept what he called the unfavourable deal Tehran is offering “without another round of attacks”.

Pusztai said Trump’s main focus is now the midterms, making it “very unlikely that he will order another large-scale attack on Iran before the elections”.

“Starting in mid to late November, there could be a major wave of attacks aimed at advancing the American agenda,” he said, adding that the aim would be to weaken the IRGC enough to push it towards a deal on US terms.

Whatever the vote’s result, “in the short term it will not change much”, Musgrave said.

A strong Republican showing could encourage more aggressive tactics, while a Democratic win could push Trump to show his unilateral powers, including by attacking, he said.

Hasn’t this all happened before?

It has. Iran was attacked by Israel or the US while talks were under way in both 2025 and 2026.

“We’ve seen this pattern of behaviour before from the United States,” Hashemi said, describing it as “talking diplomacy while preparing for war”.

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched major strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, two days before a sixth round of US-Iran talks was due in Oman. The US joined on June 22, bombing Iran’s Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan nuclear sites.

This year, the US and Israel attacked on February 28, two days after talks in Geneva that mediator Oman said had made “significant progress”.

A day before the strikes, Oman’s foreign minister said Iran had agreed to reduce its nuclear stockpiles to “the lowest level possible”.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told Al Jazeera in September that Iran no longer trusts negotiations with Washington because attacks had come during previous rounds of talks.

Hashemi said he suspects “the same pattern is repeating itself”, with the US preparing “a massive bombing campaign in Iran, replete with war crimes like we haven’t seen before”, citing his reading of Murphy’s comments.

What is blocking a deal?

“The issue is mostly around sequencing and the lack of trust on the Iranian side that the Americans will actually follow through with their commitments,” Krieg said.

Tehran wants sanctions and the US naval blockade lifted quickly, fearing that a slow process gives Trump room to backtrack, he said.

Some IRGC hardliners do not necessarily see war as a bad thing if it tightens their grip on the Hormuz strait, he added, and “the Iranians have been prepping for this war for the last three weeks, so they are ready to fight”.

Krieg said he expects “nothing is going to happen until the 3rd of November [the date of the US midterm elections]”. After that, he said, the likelihood of war will “increase exponentially”.

Any new escalation would be worse than in February and March, he said, with Iran readier to strike critical infrastructure in Gulf countries.

He said the threat to the Gulf “will be unprecedented”.

WASHINGTON — President Clinton famously said he could feel voters’ pain over the economy. But these days, when it comes to questions about high prices, President Trump insists that the pain is his.

“They hit me with affordability, and that’s the first time I ever heard the word used,” he complained in Nebraska earlier this month.

The White House leaves Vice President JD Vance to use a softer touch. Last month in Texas, he admitted “there are people out there who are frustrated by the pace of progress.” And during a CBS News town hall on Saturday, Vance said, “I recognize that gas prices are too high right now” and “we’re working on it.”

Depending on which Republican is speaking, Americans are getting a different perspective on how bad things are with the economy. Trump says “the golden age of America is upon us.” Vance walks a tightrope to show that he knows voters are feeling an economic pinch while still selling them on Trump’s agenda.

The disconnect comes as Americans’ confidence in the economy sank to the lowest level in more than a decade this month, the average long-term U.S. mortgage rate jumped this month to its highest level in nearly three years and the unemployment rate ticked up last month.

Recent economic data released this month shows that high gasoline prices are intensifying inflation and more expensive oil and gas have begun to push prices up in other parts of the economy.

While most of Trump’s supporters don’t hold him at fault, some acknowledge that the president’s penchant for salesmanship may not hit the mark.

“I think he talks it up,” said Conda Little, a 76-year-old retiree who went to see Trump in Dalton, Ga., on Friday. “I think Vance is more real.”

Little takes the president at his word that he will achieve a victory over Iran in a way that benefits U.S. consumers back home. But she said it’s impossible to deny the fallout from the conflict.

“Everybody’s real upset about the gas” and “groceries are out of sight,” she said. “It’s hard. It’s really hard,” she said, adding that, “I think that people need to hear the truth.”

‘We need to do more’

Trump is loath to acknowledge concerns. He told reporters earlier this month that he gives himself “an A+ on the government, on economics, on everything.” He has dismissed concerns about high costs, arguing that concerns about affordability are a “hoax.”

“We’re in the golden age of America. So our nation is doing better now than ever before,” he told a crowd in Kentucky on Saturday while campaigning for Republican candidates.

Trump has occasionally acknowledged that gas prices are high, but has called it “a small price to pay” for keeping the country and the world safe with the Iran war.

Trump’s discordant message with one of the top concerns voters are voicing ahead of the midterm elections has seemed heightened by his fixation on beautifying Washington and building a large ballroom at the White House.

During a visit this month to an economically struggling corner of Arizona, he regaled the crowd with the story about how he ended up with a luxury jet gifted by Qatar to use as Air Force One.

Vance, as he crisscrosses the country, is quick to say that the administration has more work to do.

To cast blame, the vice president often says that his administration’s Democratic predecessors put the country in such a deep hole that they need more time to climb out.

To show empathy, he often references his own experience growing up in a working-class family in a Rust Belt town. That’s far different from Trump, who comes from a wealthy family, is a billionaire and even joked during his speeches on Friday and Saturday that if people have lunch at his Mar-a-Lago club, “for $5,000, you’ll get one hamburger and a small dessert.”

Vance, during a CBS News town hall that aired on Saturday, said: “I grew up in a working-class family. When gas prices were high, I know that it made my grandmother suffer, and I’m sure that you’re struggling with it in a variety of ways.”

When asked by the moderator about the mixed message he and Trump are giving on the economy, Vance said Trump was speaking about new investments coming into the country, but said the changes take time.

“We need to do more, and we can certainly do better,” he acknowledged.

Many Trump supporters trust his pitch

Some voters said Trump’s rosy view on the economy turns them away, like Santiago Rodriguez, a 19-year-old Texas college student who will be voting for the first time this year.

Rodriguez, who attended a campaign rally last week for Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico, said he would consider voting for a Republican but not while Trump is in charge because he doesn’t grasp the high cost of living for Americans.

“I think he’s out of touch, I think he’s never seen what a true day as a Texan or anybody in general who is in the working class,” Rodriguez said.

Trump’s most loyal supporters aren’t interested in blaming high prices on anything the president has done.

Cindy Massengill, a 67-year-old who came to see Trump in Dalton, Ga., said she felt he’s doing the best he can.

“I’m positive that he’s got done more than any other president after the mess we were left with Obama and Biden,” she said.

Mary Bunker, a 67-year-old Republican who attended Trump’s Monday rally near Wichita, Kan., said she works multiple jobs, including as a waitress and DoorDash driver.

She feels the pressure of high gas prices, but she likes the tax breaks that Trump signed into law last year and she doesn’t fault the way he speaks about economic concerns.

“I think he’s a very good businessman,” Bunker said. “He’s been in business a long time, so I think he knows what he’s talking about.”

Price writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Bill Barrow in Dalton, Ga., Jesse Bedayn in San Marcos, Texas, and Nicholas Ingram in Park City, Kan., contributed to this report.

Vice President JD Vance declined Monday to endorse Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for reelection a day after President Trump endorsed the embattled Israeli leader.

“The president has the most influential endorsement in American or international political history,” Vance said during an interview with journalist Mark Halperin.

“I endorse American candidates, and that’s where I’m focused on the midterms,” Vance said, while traveling Monday to campaign for Republican Senate nominee Michael Whatley of North Carolina. “So, I’m not getting involved in Israeli elections.”

Vance has campaigned for a foreign leader — then-Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, last spring before the right-wing leader’s party lost that country’s parliamentary election.

Vance’s deference to Trump on Netanyahu comes at an extraordinarily sensitive time for Jewish Americans and the U.S. alliance with Israel. Concerns about antisemitism have surged across the political spectrum ahead of the midterm elections.

Republicans have been eager to portray Democrats, notably Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, as hostile toward Jews and Israel, while they deal with their own internal schisms.

Vance has faced skepticism from Jewish Republicans about his commitment to Jewish Americans and the U.S. alliance with Israel.

Last month, Vance spoke privately in Las Vegas to the Republican Jewish Coalition, a leading GOP group committed to advocating for a strong U.S. relationship with Israel and against antisemitism.

Vance left a positive impression on his RJC audience while stopping short of disavowing influential conservative podcast host Tucker Carlson.

Vance has faced general questions about his association with Carlson, a former Fox News host who faced backlash last year for interviewing antisemite Nick Fuentes on his podcast.

In June, Vance sharply criticized members of Israel’s government for opposing Trump’s efforts to resolve the war with Iran.

In July, Vance said elements of the Israeli government had tried to influence American sentiment to derail negotiations.

“There are some people within their system that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt are manipulating and trying to change American public opinion to keep the war going on indefinitely,” Vance said during an appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that the Pentagon will not livestream the firing squad execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, after the announcement faced bipartisan criticism and Vice President JD Vance said he wouldn’t watch it.

Trump said on social media that publicly airing the execution “might have been a strong deterrent for the World to witness how America deals with Terrorists and SCUM like Hasan.”

But, he continued, “any very good and well meaning people would rather not watch him die, through streaming, or through any other visual device.”

The Pentagon has said Hasan’s execution is scheduled for Dec. 3. Trump said the execution can be viewed in person by immediate families of the victims, “if they so choose.”

The announcement earlier this month from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that Hasan’s execution would be public — and subsequent confirmation from the Pentagon that it would be livestreamed — prompted significant blowback from both Republicans and Democrats, with many pointing out that the images could be used to fuel radicalization.

When asked how the public execution comported with his Christian faith earlier this month, Vance said “I don’t know that that’s actually going to happen.”

“So whatever the controversy is about the method of the execution, I hope that people don’t forget that this is a guy who brutally murdered a lot of innocent people,” Vance said.

But he continued: “Now, that said, I mean, look, if it’s ultimately livestreamed, I’m not going to be watching it.”

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who held the rank of major, walked into a medical building on Nov. 5, 2009, where soldiers were waiting in long lines to receive immunizations and medical clearance for deployment. He shouted “Allahu akbar” — Arabic for “God is great!” — and opened fire with a laser-sighted handgun. He also shot at the backs of soldiers fleeing toward the parking lot.

Hasan said it was an effort to stop them from going to Afghanistan and killing his fellow Muslims. A military judge barred him from presenting that as a defense during his 2013 trial. Hasan was left paralyzed from the waist down after being shot in the back by law enforcement, and he now uses a wheelchair.

Hasan could seek a lengthy delay of his execution, though given his behavior at trial, he may not want to.

US Vice President JD Vance has cast doubt on the Pentagon’s plans to livestream a firing squad execution of the Fort Hood shooter.

Talking with reporters, Vance expressed doubt that it would happen as planned, saying: “I don’t know that that’s actually going to happen”.

He added, that “if it’s through live stream, I’m not going to be watching it”. Vance described the actions by former US Army major Nidal Hasan as “the worst terrorist attack on American soil outside of 9/11”.

Hasan fatally shot 13 unarmed US soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009, injuring another 32. His execution by firing squad would be the first military execution in more than 60 years.