Vice President JD Vance said the United States is positioned to win “either way” in negotiations with Iran, arguing that Tehran’s nuclear program has already been severely damaged even if a final agreement is not reached.
Speaking on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, Vance defended the Trump administration’s approach to Iran and said Washington holds the stronger hand in talks. He pointed to what he described as the destruction of Iran’s uranium enrichment capability and the country’s weakened regional position.
“If we make the final deal, then great,” Vance said. If no final deal is reached, he argued, Iran would still be left with a damaged nuclear program and reduced leverage. His comments came as the United States and Iran remain in a fragile 60-day interim arrangement aimed at preventing a wider conflict while negotiators try to reach a more permanent settlement.
The timing of the interview made the remarks more politically sensitive. Hours after Vance’s appearance, new military incidents were reported around the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes. Reports said a tanker was struck by a projectile, while the U.S. and Iran exchanged additional strikes after earlier attacks on commercial vessels.
TRENDING TODAY
The Strait of Hormuz is central to the dispute because a major disruption there could affect global energy markets. Oil and liquefied natural gas shipments move through the narrow waterway, and even limited attacks can increase fears of higher fuel prices, shipping delays and broader regional escalation.
Vance argued that oil prices remaining lower than many expected showed that the administration’s negotiations were producing results. He also said the increased flow of oil through the strait was a sign that something real was happening diplomatically. Still, he acknowledged that dealing with Iran would be “messy,” even under a temporary ceasefire framework.
The biggest disagreement remains Iran’s nuclear program. Vance insisted that the key issue was Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, which he said had been destroyed. Critics of the administration’s position argue that the picture is more complicated. They point to Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which may still exist inside the country even if parts of the enrichment infrastructure were damaged.
International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi has said reducing Iran’s stockpile or transferring it abroad remains one possible path during negotiations. That issue could become central to any final agreement. If Iran retains enriched uranium, critics may argue that Tehran could eventually rebuild parts of its nuclear capacity. If the stockpile is removed or reduced under inspection, the administration could claim a stronger diplomatic victory.
Vance also offered Iran a diplomatic opening. He said the United States would be willing to transform its relationship with Iran if Tehran gives up nuclear weapons ambitions for the long term. That message reflects the administration’s attempt to combine military pressure with the possibility of a negotiated reset.
The challenge is that each new strike at sea makes diplomacy harder. Attacks on cargo ships or tankers can quickly turn an unstable ceasefire into a crisis. Even if neither side wants a full-scale war, miscalculation in the Gulf could force a response from Washington, Tehran or regional allies.
For ordinary Americans, the issue can show up through energy prices and foreign-policy risk. A serious conflict around Hormuz could push oil prices higher, raise shipping costs and affect fuel prices. For voters, the question is whether the administration’s approach is preventing a larger war or creating a cycle of pressure and retaliation that could become harder to control.
Politically, Vance’s remarks also matter because he is increasingly viewed as one of the central voices of Trump’s foreign-policy team. His appearance on Maher’s show gave him a chance to defend the administration’s Iran strategy in front of an audience that includes skeptics of both parties. He presented the policy as a position of strength, arguing that Iran has fewer options than the United States.
But the administration’s critics will likely focus on the gap between confident public statements and the risks on the ground. If tanker attacks continue, oil prices rise or Iran’s nuclear stockpile remains unresolved, the claim that America “wins either way” could face tougher scrutiny.
For now, the U.S.-Iran talks remain active, but the situation is unstable. Vance’s message was that Washington can afford to negotiate from strength. The coming weeks will test whether that confidence can survive events in the Strait of Hormuz.
Why It Matters
The Iran negotiations affect global security, oil markets and the risk of a wider Middle East conflict. If the ceasefire holds and a deal is reached, the U.S. may claim a major diplomatic success. If talks fail and attacks continue around the Strait of Hormuz, consumers and businesses could face higher energy costs and global trade uncertainty.
What Comes Next
Negotiators will continue working within the 60-day framework while military and maritime tensions remain high. The key issues will be Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, inspections, shipping security in the Strait of Hormuz and whether both sides can prevent another incident from derailing the talks.
WATCH: JD Vance defended the administration’s Iran strategy during an interview with Bill Maher, arguing that the U.S. holds a strong position in the talks.
🚨 Trump just posted JD Vance schooling Bill Maher on Iran!
🫳🏼🎤 pic.twitter.com/yMlFJtdspY
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) June 27, 2026
