分析：亚伦·布莱克
3小时前
发布时间：2026年3月13日，美国东部时间下午4:33
去年6月，就在总统唐纳德·特朗普下令对伊朗核计划发动打击数小时后，他的副总统便出现在两个不同的周日政治脱口秀节目中，盛赞此次行动的成功。JD·万斯（J D Vance）言辞热情，在不到一分钟内四次使用“不可思议”（incredible）或“难以置信地”（incredibly）一词。
今年1月，特朗普对委内瑞拉总统尼古拉斯·马杜罗（Nicolás Maduro）展开抓捕行动数小时内，万斯就在X平台（原推特）上发表了一篇充满对抗性的辩护，称此次行动在法律上是合理的。
如今，特朗普对伊朗发动战争已过去两周，万斯却迟迟未像之前那样公开表示支持。
这种情况在周五再次持续——当一名记者询问他最初及近期向特朗普提出了哪些建议时，万斯给出了长篇大论的回答，但却回避表达自己对这场战争的个人看法。
“我不想让你失望，但在上帝和所有人面前，我不会确切地告诉你我在那个机密会议室里说了什么，”他在北卡罗来纳州对记者表示，指的是国家安全委员会的 Situation Room（情况室）。
“部分原因是我不想入狱，部分原因是我认为美国总统应该能够与其顾问交谈，而这些顾问不会向美国媒体信口开河，”他继续说道。（目前尚不清楚万斯分享自己的观点为何会构成犯罪，而且他被问及的是向特朗普提供的总体建议，而非任何机密内容。）
这是一个奇怪的回答——但却揭示了万斯如何回避这一话题。
事实上，到目前为止，他最具新闻价值的评论是他向外界保证这场战争不会是一场长期的冲突。
万斯缺乏强烈的公开支持这一点早已引人注目，如今更是愈发明显。
美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）报道称，万斯最初曾建议避免另一场中东战争，但当明确特朗普倾向于军事行动时，他改变了立场，并主张总统应迅速果断地发起攻击。副总统最初的保留意见与其过去支持不干涉主义的言论是一致的。
作为参议员，他在2023年撰写的一篇专栏文章中指出，特朗普之所以是一位成功的总统，很大程度上是因为他避免介入战争。2024年，他表示与伊朗开战不符合美国的利益，并且会是“资源的巨大分散”。2020年特朗普下令杀死伊朗指挥官时，他曾警告过战争风险。而去年“信号门”事件中的私人消息显示，他对特朗普打击也门胡塞叛军的行为持怀疑态度。
但他确实是特朗普的副总统。对于一个常常要求身边人（包括其副手）表现出顺从忠诚的总统而言，看到万斯至少试图保持一定的独立性，这一点令人惊讶。
政府的批评者会认为这是政治算计——即万斯试图在2028年总统竞选前为自己争取政治空间。但他这种不介入的态度也可能成为政治上的不利因素。
由于大多数民调显示战争支持率不佳，白宫往往强调其在“让美国再次伟大”（MAGA）运动内部获得了强烈支持。然而，作为该国第二有影响力的MAGA政治家，万斯甚至不愿提供过多的政治支持。
这一点也并非隐晦。
今年1月委内瑞拉行动后，万斯迅速在X平台上为政府辩护，但过去两周他在社交媒体上却异常沉默。事实上，自战争开始以来，他的个人账号仅发布了8条内容。（值得注意的是，即使在战争开始前几个月，万斯似乎就已逐步减少了在社交媒体上的活跃度。）
尽管他的个人和官方账号发布了一些关于伊朗的内容，但大多是关于阵亡军人以及转发特朗普的评论，而非万斯本人的观点。他还发布了一次自己接受福克斯新闻关于伊朗问题采访的视频。
但在3月2日那次采访中，尽管主题是伊朗，万斯却很大程度上回避了对战争发表个人看法。
值得注意的是，他反复提及特朗普的想法或言论：“总统当时在关注”、“总统做出了决定”、“他看到了”、“他希望确保”、“总统态度非常明确”、“总统只是想要”、“总统的目标”以及“总统会满意的”。
在某种程度上，这正是万斯的职责——传达总统的观点。但去年6月对伊朗核计划发动打击时，他更多地是从个人角度表达自己的想法和感受。
那次福克斯采访的主要标题是万斯保证，这场战争不会像伊拉克和阿富汗战争那样持续数十年。
他的其他公开露面也很少涉及伊朗评论。周一，他在国际消防队员协会的演讲中仅简要提及了阵亡军人。周五在北卡罗来纳州的演讲中，他主要谈论了经济问题。
并非只有万斯被问及他与政府之间的分歧。当被问及这一问题时，特朗普和国防部长皮特·赫格塞斯（Pete Hegseth）都没有强烈反对万斯与总统立场不同的说法。
周一，当被问及他与万斯之间是否存在分歧时，特朗普回答道：“我认为没有。不，没有。我们在这件事上相处得很好。”
但他随后又暗示其中存在一些问题：“我会说，他在哲学理念上与我略有不同。我认为他可能对行动的热情稍低一些，但他非常积极。”
周五被问及万斯与特朗普之间是否存在“分歧”时，赫格塞斯回避了直接回答。
“至于副总统，他是一位杰出的成员，也是这个团队的领导者之一，与总统和国务卿并肩作战，”赫格塞斯表示，并补充说，这个团队为特朗普提供了多种选择，“而副总统每天都是其中的关键声音——实际上是不可或缺的声音。”
无论出于何种原因——无论是哲学理念、政治考量还是两者兼有——万斯都没有给出任何理由来质疑他并未完全支持政府的说法。而政府也允许他保持距离。
但随着战争持续，这种姿态能维持多久，仍有待观察。
Vance’s distance from the Iran war is getting more conspicuous
Analysis by Aaron Blake
3 hr ago
PUBLISHED Mar 13, 2026, 4:33 PM ET
Vice President JD Vance speaks at The Power House in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, on Friday.
Kent Nishimura/Getty Images
Mere hours after President Donald Trump ordered strikes on Iran’s nuclear program last June, his vice president appeared on two separate Sunday shows to hail the success of the mission. JD Vance was so effusive that he used the word “incredible” or “incredibly” four times in less than one minute.
Within hours of Trump’s operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, Vance was on X posting a combative defense of the legality of the operation.
It’s now been two weeks since Trump launched a war with Iran, and Vance has yet to offer anything like these public votes of confidence.
That continued Friday, when he was asked by a reporter what he had advised Trump initially and more recently.
Vance gave an extended answer but punted on giving his personal view of the war.
“I hate to disappoint you, but I’m not going to show up here and, in front of God and everybody else, tell you exactly what I said in that classified room,” he told reporters in North Carolina, referring to the Situation Room.
“Partially because I don’t want to go to prison, and partially because I think it’s important for the president of the United States to be able to talk to his advisers without those advisers running their mouth to the American media,” he continued. (It’s not clear how Vance sharing his opinions would be a crime, and he was asked more broadly about his advice to Trump, not anything classified.)
It was a strange answer — but a telling one when it comes to how Vance has avoided this subject.
In fact, his most newsworthy comments to date have been his assurances that the war wouldn’t be a prolonged one.
Vance’s lack of strong public support has been conspicuous for a while, but it’s getting even more so.
CNN has reported that Vance initially counseled against another Middle East war but shifted his stance when it became clear Trump favored military action and advocated for the president to attack quickly and decisively. The vice president’s initial reservations square with his past commentary espousing the virtues of non-interventionism.
As a senator, he wrote an op-ed in 2023 arguing that Trump was a successful president in large part because he stayed out of wars. In 2024, he said war with Iran, specifically, was not in the US’ interest and would be a “huge distraction of resources.” He warned about war in 2020 when Trump ordered the killing of an Iranian commander. And private messages from “Signal-gate” last year suggested he was skeptical of Trump’s strikes on Yemen’s Houthi rebels.
But he is Trump’s vice president. And for a president who often demands obsequious fealty from those around him — including his No. 2 — it’s been astonishing to see Vance try to keep his powder at least somewhat dry.
Critics of the administration will see politics at work — i.e. Vance trying to insulate himself ahead of the 2028 presidential campaign. But his hands-off approach could be a political liability too.
With the war polling poorly in most surveys, the White House has often pointed to its strong support within the MAGA movement. Yet here is the second-most powerful MAGA politician in the country who won’t even lend too much of his political support.
And it’s not terribly subtle, either.
While Vance was quick to take to X to defend the administration after the Venezuela operation in January, he’s been very quiet on social media the last two weeks. In fact, he’s posted just eight times on his personal account since the war began. (It’s worth noting, however, that Vance seems to have taken a step back on social media in recent months, even before the war began.)
While some of the posts on his personal and official accounts are about Iran, those are mostly about killed service members and sharing Trump’s comments rather than Vance’s own. He also posted an interview he did with Fox News about Iran.
But while the subject of that March 2 interview was Iran, Vance largely avoided giving his opinion on the war.
Tellingly, he repeatedly pointed to what Trump was thinking or saying: “the president was looking”; “the president determined”; “he saw that”; “he wanted to make sure”; “the president’s been extremely clear”; “the president just wants”; “the president’s objective”; and “the president will be happy.”
To some degree, that’s Vance job — to talk about the president’s views. But after the June strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, he spoke much more in terms of what he, personally, thought and felt.
And the big headline from that Fox appearance was Vance assuring that this wouldn’t be a decades-long process like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
His other public appearances have been short on Iran comments. He briefly mentioned the killed service members in a speech to the International Association of Fire Fighters on Monday. And in Friday’s speech in North Carolina, he kept mostly to the economy.
Vance is not the only one who’s been asked about daylight between him and the administration. When asked about this subject, neither Trump nor Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have protested too hard about the idea that Vance is in a different place than the president.
When Trump was asked Monday if there was any disagreement between him and Vance, he responded, “I don’t think so. No. No. We get along very well on this.”
But then he suggested there was something to it: “He was, I would say, philosophically a little bit different than me. I think he was maybe less enthusiastic about going, but he was quite enthusiastic.”
Asked on Friday whether there is a “division” between Vance and Trump, Hegseth avoided a direct answer.
“As far as the vice president, he’s an incredible member, leader of this team as well, alongside the president and the secretary of state,” Hegseth said, adding that this team gives Trump options, “and the vice president, every single day, is a key voice in that — an indispensable voice in that, actually.”
For whatever reason — be it philosophical, political or both — Vance isn’t giving us anything to dispute the narrative that he’s not fully on board. And the administration is allowing him to keep his distance.
But it remains to be seen how long that posture can be maintained the longer the war goes on.