By Jacob Bogage
FAIRBANKS, Alaska, Oct 6 (Reuters) – US Vice President JD Vance gave an exclusive interview to Reuters on Monday while campaigning in Alaska, a state that has emerged as a key battleground in the November elections that will determine control of Congress.
This transcript of the interview, which took place after a rally at Fairbanks International Airport for Republican US Senator Dan Sullivan, has been edited lightly for length and clarity.
Jacob Bogage, Reuters:
Mr. Vice President, let’s start here. Can you tell me about where things stand with Iran right now?
Vice President JD Vance:
Well, you know, we’re at a place where the Iranians are trying to terrorize the world economy by shooting at commercial shipping. They’re largely failing. They’re hitting some ships, but not enough to stop the flow of oil and gas. So what that means is, their response to us destroying the nuclear program was to try to terrorize commercial shipping and exercise leverage over the United States of America.
And where we are is, as the president said, the nuclear program’s been destroyed, but every time they try to squeeze the world economy, we actually squeeze them harder. And so I think what the president has said is, look, you guys fundamentally are not in a game that’s going to work out for you. Every time they try to cause damage to the world economy, they end up causing much greater damage to themselves, and eventually they’re going to have to decide either to make smarter decisions or to suffer the consequences.
Bogage:
You’ve played a pivotal role in terms of American foreign policy writ large, turning how the US engages on the world’s stage from conflicts without direct American interests, like Ukraine, to conflicts with direct American interests, like Iran. Tell me a little bit about what does it take for the US to resume kinetic attacks? What do you need to hear? Or, rather, what do you need to not hear?
Vance:
That’s obviously a decision the president of the United States will make. But you know, we have to start with a fundamental goal here. The goal here is to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon, and really to prevent regional nuclear proliferation. Because, as the president’s reminded people, it’s if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, then other countries will get a nuclear weapon.
Bogage:
Is that a larger focus than where this conflict began?
Vance:
To finish that question, what that means is their nuclear facilities, their enrichment facilities, have been destroyed, and we’re going to ensure that they can’t rebuild those facilities and rebuild their nuclear capacity.
That’s fundamentally the goal here, and everything else that’s happening, from them terrorizing shipping to our response to that, is really a subplot of the much bigger goal of keeping them from having a nuclear weapon.
Bogage:
You talk about preventing regional proliferation. Is that a goal that has expanded from the original goal of this operation?
Vance:
No, no. I mean, I think that’s one of the reasons why the president didn’t want Iran to get a nuclear weapon, because he realized that if they did, then a lot of other countries would then sprint for a nuclear weapon.
So, you know, you don’t want the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism to have a nuclear weapon. You also don’t want to radically increase the number of nuclear weapons in the world. The president hears a lot about that.
It’s interesting. It’s something that came up in the conversation with (Chinese President) Xi (Jinping) that the president has said multiple times publicly. He doesn’t like mass proliferation of nuclear weapons. It’s one of the core parts of his foreign policy, and frankly, something that both Democrats and Republicans should have been a little more focused on over the last 40 years.
Bogage:
Who is the US negotiating with right now?
Vance:
Well, that’s a good question.
You know we’re negotiating with the political leadership of the country, specifically, you know, the foreign minister has led the negotiations, the president of the country, a number of people work for them. But one of the things we picked up on is it’s not totally clear how their country makes decisions.
If you go back to the original agreement that we struck, it was very simple. It was not a complicated document. It basically said we’re going to open up the Strait of Hormuz, the United States is going to lift our blockade, and we’re going to talk about the nuclear program. That’s really all it said.
And they couldn’t even keep the end of the bargain where they didn’t shoot at commercial shipping. And our assessment of why that is, is because, yeah, you have people in the country who want to make a deal, and we’re willing to talk to them. You also have people in the country who are trying to sabotage a deal, which I think is very stupid for their country. But you know, it’s ultimately their decision to make.
Bogage:
Iran has said for 47 years, and I’m not going to weigh in on whether it’s believable or not, that they don’t want a nuclear weapon. How do they communicate that any differently, in a way that helps the United States wind down its operation?
Vance:
Well, I guess I would say, if you don’t want a nuclear weapon, then why do you need 60% enriched fuel? And if you want to show commitment to not building a nuclear weapon, don’t build highly enriched fuel. That’s a very basic threshold issue.
Sixty percent enriched uranium, you know, I’m hardly a nuclear scientist, but I’ve learned this: you don’t need that for any energy production. You don’t need it for anything except to have threshold weapons-grade uranium.
So I think if they want to show a commitment to not building a nuclear weapon, they would do something meaningful on their enrichment capacity. So far, we haven’t seen a long-term commitment to do that.
Bogage:
There’s been reporting that you are leading these talks. Are you leading these talks?
Vance:
We’re certainly involved. I mean, ultimately, the president of the United States is driving things and is issuing direction. And then, you know, we’re trying to get the president’s mission accomplished as best we can.
You know, what the president has said is, you know, look, from the very beginning, we’re willing to strike an agreement where the Iranians commit to not rebuilding their nuclear program and take real steps in order to do that, but it takes two to tango, and we’re not going to trade words for actions.
In other words, the United States is not going to do things for mere promise of actions on the Iranian side. We need to trade actions for actions here, and we’ll see what the Iranians do.
Bogage:
Since we spoke earlier this morning, the New York Times reported there was an Iranian operation in motion in the UK at RAF Fairford, similar to perhaps what the Ukrainians had done in getting drones deep into the country. Do you have any intelligence on that that you’re in a position to share?
Vance:
I’m not going to speak to classified intelligence. Nothing has happened yet. We’re very aware that the Iranians are trying to conduct strikes against American assets all over the world. You know, we also have incredibly capable guys on the military side and the intelligence side. So far, nothing has happened. We’ll keep praying and working to ensure that it doesn’t.
Bogage:
On munitions stocks, we hear one thing from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. We hear other things from commanders in the field, but I know you speak to them personally. Have they conveyed concern about munition stocks to you?
Vance:
I’d be surprised if the commanders in the field were saying something different than what Secretary Hegseth is saying, because obviously they’re communicating to him and they’re communicating to all of us.
I think what is undoubtedly true is that warfare has changed. I mean, you mentioned this Ukrainian attack on a Russian airfield, and you know whatever the reality is, people are using drones and asymmetric capabilities in a totally new way, and that does require a totally new kind of defensive and offensive capability.
Do I think that we’re far ahead of anybody else in the world? Yeah. Do I think that we always need to be thinking about how to build more? The president, I wouldn’t even say laser-focused. I would say he is obsessed with this question of how we stay ahead in terms of military-grade technology.
I think that sometimes this munitions conversation gets reinterpreted through a lens of American weakness, when in reality, what the president is just trying to say is, we need to build the weapons of the future, and we need to build enough so that we can properly defend ourselves.
Bogage:
It would be malpractice, Mr. Vice President, if I didn’t ask this.
Vance:
Go ahead.
Bogage:
These good people at the rally seem like they want you to run for president. Are you going to run for president, sir?
Vance:
Man, I’ve been asked that question a lot. I’m inherently a procrastinator, and I really haven’t thought that much about it. We’re going to try to win the midterms, get Dan Sullivan elected, which I’m very confident we’re going to do, and then, you know, we’ll figure it out after that.
(Reporting by Jacob BogageEditing by Rod Nickel)
Comments