What we know about Vance’s letter to Rezaei, as Trump warns Gulf to ‘get ready’ | US-Israeli war against Iran

US Vice President JD Vance sent a letter to Iranian security chief Mohsen Rezaei in an 11-hour effort to restart peace talks, according to US media.

The letter, which was reportedly “welcomed” by Iran, was aimed at assessing whether the United States and Iran can narrow their differences enough to avoid another round of U.S. strikes against Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The move comes as Trump warns U.S. Gulf allies to prepare for a brief, high-intensity military campaign after next week’s U.S. midterm elections, according to the Journal. Trump previously said the United States could “do another little epic fury,” referring to the military operation against Iran that began in February.

So what does Vance’s letter mean for the prospects of a resumption of the U.S.-Iran conflict — or a return to negotiations?

What was in the letter?

Vance’s letter to Rezaei, who heads Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, has not been published, but several U.S. media outlets have reported on its contents.

The Journal cited an informed source as saying that the letter and follow-up discussions did not cover specific peace terms, but rather a potential “framework for negotiations.”

Another source told the Journal that the goal was to see if “Tehran and Washington could find enough common ground to persuade Trump not to issue the final order for a short, intense attack on Iran in the coming weeks.”

The New York Times reported that Vance’s letter proposed an upcoming meeting between U.S. and Iranian officials, with Vance leading a U.S. delegation as he did during previous U.S.-Iran negotiations in June.

The Times reported that the letter was conveyed to Rezaei by Qatari mediators on Sunday. Vance called for direct negotiations and said Iran’s nuclear program should be on the table from the start, according to U.S. and Iranian officials cited by media reports.

If Iran agrees, negotiations could take place as early as next week, the officials said, citing Qatar or Turkey as possible venues.

How did Iran react?

Iran has not publicly commented on the letter, but the Times reported that it was “welcomed by Iranian leaders.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also addressed the ongoing negotiations in a social media post on Wednesday, saying Iran “continues to give diplomacy a chance.”

Rezaei is expected to formally respond to Vance’s letter on Thursday, according to the Times.

Hamidreza Azizi, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that Vance’s decision to address the letter to Rezaei is significant, reflecting a possible shift in Washington’s view on who holds influence in Tehran.

“This could indicate that the Americans believe that changes in the internal power dynamics in Tehran have created better prospects for achieving something through direct engagement with Rezaei,” he said.

How is this letter different from previous attempts at American negotiations?

Vance has always seemed more opposed to prolonged military conflict with Iran than Trump. While publicly supporting the war, the vice president reportedly preferred to pursue more intensive diplomacy before the United States joined Israel in the war against Iran in February. He has since privately expressed concerns about the protracted conflict, according to US media.

Messages, however, have been mixed regarding Trump’s contribution to Vance’s latest outreach effort. The Journal reported that Trump asked Vance to send the letter to Rezaei, but Trump later disputed this.

Speaking to reporters, Trump said he had given Vance the green light to reach out to Iran, but characterized the initiative as aimed at helping Iran “with medical supplies and various things.”

Ali Vaez, deputy program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that Tehran views Vance as “someone who both has the ear of the president and who understands the price of failure.”

“Unlike Trump, who views escalation as a source of leverage, Vance seems more sensitive to its diminishing returns,” Vaez said. “But a more credible messenger alone cannot bridge a chasm of substantial disagreement. »

Rouzbeh Parsi, an Iran analyst and affiliated researcher with the department of history and human rights studies at Lund University in Sweden, described Vance as the “voice of reason” on Iran within the Trump administration, saying his signals were “the least volatile and unpredictable.”

However, Parsi told Al Jazeera that Vance’s position “never proved strong enough to actually influence Trump.”

“So even though Vance’s optics seem better than anyone else’s in the Trump administration, I doubt they (Iranian officials) will give much credence to outreach until Vance proves capable of actually delivering something on his own,” he said.

Azizi also said Tehran was aware of the limits of Vance’s influence within the Trump administration.

“We have seen two wars in less than a year, despite Vance’s objections and differing opinions,” he said. “For this reason, I believe that the leaders in Tehran continue to view American initiatives and military threats with great suspicion.

“Ultimately, Trump makes the final decisions – and the fact that he has proven unpredictable and difficult to trust – remains a major factor shaping Iranian decision-making right now,” Azizi added.

Why did Trump warn Gulf states to “brace themselves”?

Trump has reportedly asked his Gulf allies to prepare for a resumption of conflict amid signs they could be increasingly exposed to Iranian retaliation.

Tehran has repeatedly warned that it will respond more aggressively to any new wave of US-Israeli attacks, including striking oil sites, undersea cables, data centers and AI facilities in the Gulf.

“Our strategy is ‘zero red lines,’” Mehdi Mohammadi, advisor to Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf, said in a statement on October 21.

Against this backdrop, Gulf countries have stepped up diplomacy with Iran, with Saudi and Qatari diplomats, as well as Pakistani and Turkish officials, participating in talks with Iranian officials in Tehran on Monday.

Is a US strike likely after the midterm elections next week?

Yes, according to many analysts.

Vaez said the risk was “dangerously high,” with the Nov. 3 election potentially marking “the expiration of (Trump’s) political restraint.”

“The military machinery is being assembled and diplomatic time is running slow,” Vaez said. “It’s a mistake to think that Trump will be a lame duck after the midterm elections. Instead, he risks becoming a flaming duck, taking bigger risks.”

Marzieh Kouhi Esfahani, assistant professor of Middle East politics and international relations at the University of Durham, UK, also said the likelihood of further strikes was “quite high”.

“Both sides are determined to end this impasse, without war or peace,” she told Al Jazeera. “The likelihood of this happening…towards more war is much higher than towards peace. »

Parsi said a possible new military campaign could be extremely destructive.

“Since both sides feel the pressure to prove themselves, this upcoming military exchange will be larger and cause more devastation and bloodshed,” he said.