Foreign affairs
Vance blames war for losses; Trump defends decisionReconcile the war review with the vice president's post
Iran Review now contains two assessments of the same decision. Operations still has no settlement to file beneath them.
- Executive owner
- Donald J. Trump / JD Vance / Iran Negotiations
- Status
- Vance blames war for losses; Trump defends decision
- Due
- No agreed settlement timetable
- Paying for it
- U.S. defense resources; households and businesses exposed to fuel costs
ACTIVITY
UpdatedThe President moved Win war to Very soon.
I know Winning, tremendous Practice! Victory Speech where I can reach it, please.
Mediators remained in contact. Operations requested an actual date.
VERY SOON, I said Very Soon!!
Energy scheduled lower gasoline prices for after victory, with no delivery window.
Obsessed with a Date, I give a Date, they tell the Other Side, now THEY have my Date..... why would I do that?? I like keeping a little something for myself. It's called NEGOTIATING!
The new remark supplies a possibility. Operations has not received a public timetable from it.
I can have options. That's why they're called MY options.
I say we can finish quickly, they ask how quickly. I say perhaps another operation, they ask how many operations. These people would have requested a seating chart for the Trojan Horse, ruined the entire thing before it got through the Gate. I know the story, very successful horse initially.
The briefing will distinguish a rally remark from an announced military decision.
The earlier pre-election assurance remains in the chronology.
I want the fuel prices lower while everybody studies my Adjectives.
Very soon is still my preference. I'm not giving it a fixed address so the other side can visit.
Reporting describes a letter exploring talks. Trump described help with medical supplies.
I approved the contact. You can underline approved.
No agreement is recorded.
JD can write a letter, he's written a whole book, I think a letter is well within the equipment. But everybody reads the envelope and starts ordering a Peace Summit..... I haven't even seen what chairs they're imagining.
I want the people helped. Very simple sentence. Apparently needs a whole briefing.
Summit arrangements require more than correspondence.
Good. Leave the chairs where they are, I am not paying to rearrange a room for a paragraph.
I would take two days. Two days of being FINISHED.
The proposed duration applies to implementation after agreement.
No countdown has been started.
They compressed the plan, wonderful, I have people compressing my briefings all the time, sometimes they leave out the best part which is what I did. But if all the same disagreements fit on a smaller page then I have saved paper, I haven't necessarily saved a Week.
I need the agreeing part. Bring me THAT page.
The parties' conditions remain the relevant comparison.
Put them side by side so I can see the gap. Don't shrink the font and tell me we're closer.
I gave a short answer. They were expecting a whole aircraft carrier.
The answer has been entered with its date and the question asked.
I like a deal that gets finished, everybody knows I like that, but then the cameras want the other version, the big arrows and the dramatic music. I can say NO without commissioning a new theme song. Let the negotiating people negotiate for a minute.
No settlement has been entered as completed.
Earlier statements remain in the chronology.
I want the newest answer first. That's why we put dates on things.
And I am not signing the word 'forever' just because somebody found room for it in a headline.
The President's and Vice President's assessments have been retained separately.
I saw JD's post.
Neither statement supplies agreed settlement terms.
He writes a lot, JD, very capable writer, sometimes I would prefer the short version before the whole country gets the long version. I have a comments section inside my own Administration now. Tremendous engagement, apparently.
I still want the actual terms on my desk.
A political assessment has not been entered as a military instruction.
Good. I don't want somebody launching a paragraph. We've got enough paragraphs in the air already.
PUBLIC RECORD
Speaking in the Oval Office on September 28, Trump said the U.S. would win the Iran war 'very soon' and that gas prices would fall afterward. He said U.S. officials had spoken with mediators, but announced no agreement. At an October 23 Florida rally, Trump raised the possibility of another military operation against Iran without elaborating. Earlier that day he weighed ending the war quickly against allowing it to wind down. Reuters noted that he had previously said there would be no attack before the midterms. The remarks did not establish a new operation, order or timetable. October 29 update: The Wall Street Journal, republished by To Vima October 29, reported that Vance wrote to Iranian security chief Mohsen Rezaei to explore reviving negotiations, citing U.S. officials and people familiar with the matter. Trump said October 28 that he approved Vance's contact and described its purpose as help with medical supplies, denying that he directed a resumption of peace talks. The report said discussions concerned a possible framework, not detailed peace terms. Vance's spokesman declined to discuss the talks; Iran's foreign-ministry spokesman said he had no information on the outreach. No agreement was established. November 2 update: Iran said November 2 that mediated contacts continue after its negotiators left Doha November 1 without a breakthrough. Spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran's seven-step proposal was condensed for possible implementation within two days. Iran still requires its conditions to be fulfilled before nuclear talks. Trump rejected the earlier proposal in September. A shorter proposed timetable is not an accepted agreement. November 3 update: On November 2 Trump answered no when asked whether he was considering strikes on Iran after the midterms and said a deal could happen. Vance described encouraging conversations. Trump reiterated that Iran must not possess a nuclear weapon. Reuters characterized the remarks as raising doubts about renewed attacks; they did not establish a negotiated settlement or a permanent renunciation of force. November 5 update: On November 4 Vance blamed the Iran war for Republican election losses and questioned its cost. Trump acknowledged electoral harm but defended the war as necessary to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon and said he would not have acted differently. Reuters reported that renewed major operations remained under consideration, citing U.S. officials. The remarks do not announce new strikes or a peace agreement.
Reuters · Possible further Iran operation · 2026-10-23 ↗
Reuters via ThePrint · Full report · 2026-10-24 ↗
The Wall Street Journal via To Vima · Vance outreach · 2026-10-29 ↗
IranWire · Trump's description of contact · 2026-10-29 ↗
Reuters · Doha talks and condensed Iranian proposal · 2026-11-02 ↗
Reuters via AOL · 2026-11-02 ↗