US Vice President JD Vance has sent a letter to Iran’s security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, in a last-minute effort to revive peace talks, according to US media reports. The letter has reportedly been “received well” by Iran, and it was meant to test whether Washington and Tehran can narrow their differences enough to head off a possible new round of US strikes, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The outreach comes as Trump warns Washington’s Gulf allies to get ready for a brief, high-intensity military campaign after next week’s US midterm elections, the Journal said. Trump has also said the US may “do another little Epic Fury”, a reference to the military operation against Iran that began in February.
What the reported contents of Vance’s letter reveal
The letter, which Rezaei heads Iran’s Supreme National Security Council to receive, has not been published. Several US outlets have nonetheless described what it says, drawing on people familiar with the matter.
Also read: Trump signals possible new US military action against Iran · Iran blames US for deal failure, urges renewed talks
The Journal quoted an informed source saying that the letter and follow-up discussions did not address specific peace terms. Instead, they centred on a potential “framework for negotiations”. A second source told the paper the aim was to see whether “Tehran and Washington could find enough common ground to persuade Trump not to give a final order for a short, intense attack on Iran in the coming weeks”.
The New York Times reported that the letter proposed a meeting between US and Iranian officials in the near future, with Vance leading the American delegation, as he did in earlier talks in June. The paper said Qatari mediators passed the letter to Rezaei on Sunday. According to US and Iranian officials quoted by the media, Vance called for direct talks and said Iran’s nuclear programme would have to be on the table from the start.
If Tehran agrees, the officials said, negotiations could take place as early as next week. They named Qatar or Turkiye as possible venues.
Iran’s public silence and signs of openness
Iran has not publicly commented on the letter. The Times nevertheless reported that it had been “received well by Iran’s leaders”. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi referred to ongoing negotiations in a social media post on Wednesday, saying Iran “continues to give diplomacy a chance”.
According to the Times, Rezaei is expected to formally respond to Vance’s letter on Thursday.
Analysts split on Vance’s influence and Trump’s role
Hamidreza Azizi, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told that the decision to address the letter to Rezaei was significant. In his view, it could reflect a shift in Washington’s assessment of who holds influence in Tehran. “This could indicate that the Americans believe changes in Tehran’s internal power dynamics have created better prospects for achieving something through direct engagement with Rezaei,” he said.
US media reports say Vance has consistently been more wary of a prolonged military conflict with Iran than Trump. Although he publicly backed the war, he reportedly favoured intensive diplomacy before the US joined Israel in the fighting in February, and he has since voiced private concern about the drawn-out conflict.
The signals about Trump’s part in the initiative have been inconsistent. The Journal reported that Trump directed Vance to send the letter, but Trump later disputed this. Speaking to reporters, he said he had approved Vance reaching out to Iran, describing the effort as aimed at helping Iran “with medical supplies and various things”.
Ali Vaez, deputy programme director for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group, told that Tehran sees Vance as someone with access to the president and an understanding of the cost of failure. “Unlike Trump, who sees escalation as a source of leverage, Vance appears more attuned to its diminishing returns,” Vaez said. “But a more credible messenger alone cannot bridge a chasm of substantive disagreements.”
Rouzbeh Parsi, an Iran analyst and affiliated researcher at Lund University’s Department of History and Human Rights Studies in Sweden, called Vance the “voice of reason” on Iran within the Trump administration. He said Vance’s signals have been the least volatile and unpredictable. Parsi also told that Vance’s position has “never proven to be sturdy enough to actually sway Trump”. He added that Iranian officials are unlikely to give the outreach much credence until Vance can deliver something on his own.
Azizi said Tehran understands the limits of Vance’s influence. “We have seen two wars in less than a year, despite Vance’s objections and differing views,” he said. “For that reason, I believe the leadership in Tehran still views US initiatives and military threats with considerable suspicion.”
Gulf states step up diplomacy as renewed fighting looms
Trump has reportedly told Gulf allies to prepare for renewed conflict, at a time when they may be increasingly exposed to Iranian retaliation. Tehran has repeatedly warned that it would respond more aggressively to any new wave of US-Israeli attacks. Its threats include strikes on oil sites, undersea cables, data centres and AI facilities in the Gulf.
“Our strategy is ‘zero red lines’,” said Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf, in a statement on October 21.
Against this backdrop, Gulf countries have increased their diplomatic engagement with Iran. Saudi and Qatari diplomats, along with officials from Pakistan and Turkiye, took part in talks with Iranian officials in Tehran on Monday.
Vaez said the risk of conflict is “dangerously high”, and suggested the November 3 elections could mark “the expiration of [Trump’s] political restraint.” “The military machinery is being assembled and the diplomatic clock is running down,” he said. “It’s a mistake to think Trump will be a lame duck after the midterms. He’s more likely to become a flame duck, taking bigger risks.”
Parsi warned that a potential new military campaign could be extremely destructive. “Since both sides feel the pressure to prove themselves, this coming military exchange will be more significant and cause more devastation and bloodshed,” he said.
