Relations between the United States and Iran have for decades been one of the most complex and dangerous axes of international politics.
In 2026, tensions escalated again, with failed diplomatic efforts, military preparations and intense internal disagreements in Washington.
At the same time, within the Republican Party, a new field of power is taking shape, where figures such as US Vice President J. D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio represent different schools of thought regarding the role of the United States in the world.
The convergence of these two developments, foreign policy and internal political confrontation, has led to a multitude of interpretations.
Some of these argue that the failures in diplomacy are not accidental, but the result of deliberate strategic choices.
A carefully staged trap
Many credible analysts in the United States argue that the representation of the American side in the Islamabad negotiations by J. D. Vance was a carefully staged trap by the Deep State for the American vice president, so that he would lose ground on the path to the presidential nomination of the Republican Party for the 2028 presidential elections.
The maximalist demands of the Americans, such as the complete surrender of Iran’s nuclear stockpiles, left no room for Tehran to accept any diplomatic compromise.
The failure of the negotiations was guaranteed and the collapse would be attributed to Vance as head of the American delegation.
Why the deep state prefers Rubio’s candidacy
Former CIA agent John Kiriakou argued that from February 2026 there were intense disagreements within the American government.
In favor of military action were Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth and against were J. D. Vance and Tulsi Gabbard
This divergence of views reflects a deeper ideological conflict.
On the one hand, the approach that emphasizes power and deterrence.
On the other, a more restrained strategy that avoids new military engagements
The stage was set in Islamabad
The talks between the United States and Iran collapsed in an environment of deep distrust.
The main reasons include disagreements over Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions and economic pressure, regional conflicts in the Middle East as well as a lack of political will for compromise.
In this context, the failure of the talks can be interpreted in more “classical” terms of international relations, conflict of interests and strategies.
However, political circles in the United States have also given a different dimension, arguing that developments serve internal political balances.
Well known journalist Tucker Carlson, a prominent representative of the MAGA movement, openly accused Donald Trump of submitting to the Deep State and the military industrial complex with the war in Iran.
He publicly denounced that the government of the United States does not serve the interests of Americans.
The two trends in the Republican Party
In this context it should be noted that the Republican Party is no longer monolithic, there are clearly two main trends:
1) The “America First” wing
It is mainly expressed by J. D. Vance and opposes new wars, emphasizes the domestic economy and supports limiting military interventions
2) The traditional interventionist wing
It is more represented by Marco Rubio and supports an “active” foreign policy of promoting American power internationally, closer relations with strategic alliances and strengthening through new orders of the military industrial complex.
This distinction is critical to understand why developments around Iran also acquire internal political significance in the United States.
The sudden rise of Marco Rubio
The data show that Marco Rubio has significantly strengthened his position.
He shows an increase in polls, for example CPAC, maintains a strong presence in the White House while he has a dual role in the State Department and the National Security Council
According to officials of the Donald Trump administration, Rubio is considered loyal, experienced and effective.
His political evolution is notable, from a 2016 candidate who was considered establishment, he has become an acceptable figure for the MAGA movement.
Vance as representative of MAGA but...
J. D. Vance maintains high poll ratings, expresses the core of MAGA and has a strong base of supporters
However, his stance against military conflict with Iran puts him at odds with more aggressive strategies.
Rubio the favorite of the military-industrial complex
As Secretary of State of the United States, he is directly linked to the promotion of a strategy that serves the interests of the American military industrial complex.
The criticism focuses on the fact that these military interventions and the maintenance of war fronts directly fuel American defense industries, which benefit from increased defense spending.
It should not be overlooked that Rubio is one of the top recipients of funding from the defense industrial complex of the United States.
According to data from OpenSecrets, during his tenure in Congress he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from weapons companies and defense PACs.
“Trump submitted to the system”
Meanwhile, strong reactions were caused by the harsh attack of Tucker Carlson against Washington, directly questioning whether the government operates for the benefit of its own citizens.
In statements to the Wall Street Journal, Carlson, who supports Vance, did not limit himself to simple disagreement.
He raised a deeper issue, that the American political system operates in a way that goes beyond even the president himself.
Referring to Donald Trump, he argued that his presidency proved that “the system is stronger than the individual”.
His most striking statement, however, concerns the war with Iran itself.
Carlson made it clear that he is not turning personally against Trump, but against the policy choice for conflict.
“I do not hate Trump. I hate this war,” he stated characteristically, emphasizing that he feels morally obliged to react.
The most impressive element is the rupture caused by this disagreement.
From cracks in MAGA to a split
According to the revelations, the relationship of Carlson with Trump, a relationship that lasted almost a decade, collapsed on the day the military operation of the United States and Israel against Iran began, on February 28.
This development has particular political weight.
Carlson was not simply a commentator, but an active supporter of Trump, with significant influence on his electoral base.
His shift, from a fervent ally to a fierce critic, reveals deeper cracks within the American political and communication ecosystem.
The message that emerges is clear, the policy of the United States in the Middle East is no longer being questioned only internationally, but also by strong voices within the country itself.
And this internal questioning may prove more decisive than any external pressure.
Political consequences
One of the most revealing elements of the case is that Carlson tried, for months, to prevent the involvement of the United States in a new war in the Middle East.
Despite his access and influence, he failed to change the course of developments.
This reinforces his core argument, that decisions are not made exclusively by the president or his close circle, but by a broader system that determines strategic choices.
The public rupture between Carlson and Trump is not an isolated incident.
It reflects deeper cracks within the American political space, particularly in the camp that until recently appeared unified.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών