Vance holds ‘no bulls***’ conversation with Netanyahu as US unleashed new strikes on Iran
US Vice-President JD Vance and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a direct discussion in Washington aimed at resolving tensions over US efforts to negotiate with Iran. The meeting followed repeated public criticism from Vance of Israeli officials who opposed the peace initiative, amid concern that Israel could broaden its conflict with Iran.
Accounts differed slightly on the tone, describing the conversation as frank, candid, cordial and productive, but officials said it was not contentious and clarified both sides’ positions. Vance has warned Israeli critics not to alienate the United States, criticised ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, and argued that Israel is losing public support in America; he has also accused Israeli-linked interests of attacking his diplomatic efforts.
- Vance and Netanyahu held frank talks to ease tensions over Iran diplomacy.
- The meeting followed sharp US criticism of Israeli officials.
- Both sides reportedly agreed to pursue shared interests.
New here? Start with this
Iran and Israel have long been regional rivals, with tensions focused on Iran’s nuclear programme, its missile forces and its support for armed groups opposed to Israel. The United States is Israel’s closest ally, providing military support and diplomatic backing, while also having its own concerns about Iran’s influence in the Middle East.
Benjamin Netanyahu has led Israel through repeated confrontations with Iran and its allies. JD Vance is the US vice-president and part of an administration that must balance support for Israel with efforts to avoid a wider regional war.
Direct discussions between US and Israeli leaders matter because decisions by either country can affect security across the Middle East, including shipping routes, energy supplies and the involvement of other regional powers. Differences over military aims, timing or limits can also test the close relationship between Washington and Israel.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that frank, private diplomacy between close allies is necessary when decisions carry serious regional and security consequences. They may see US military pressure on Iran, combined with direct engagement with Israel, as a way to deter threats, preserve allied security and ensure that Israeli actions do not undermine wider American objectives.
The case against
Critics argue that further strikes risk deepening a regional conflict, with potentially grave consequences for civilians, troops and diplomatic efforts. They may contend that blunt pressure on Israel cannot substitute for a clear, publicly accountable strategy, especially when the reported account provides too little information about the strikes’ aims, effects or safeguards.