US Vice President JD Vance is emerging as a key figure in restarting diplomacy with Iran. According to US and Middle Eastern officials, President Trump has authorized Vance to lead negotiations and is considering a face-to-face meeting with Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, to seek an end to the conflict, which is seen as dragging down the Republican Party's performance in the midterm elections. Discussions are still in their early stages, with both sides communicating next steps through mediators and allies. Doha is considered a potential meeting location. Meanwhile, attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz continue, Iran maintains a hardline stance on enriched uranium, and oil prices fluctuate between expectations of peace and the reality of friction.

Vance's appointment as chief negotiator for Iran presents both political risks and opportunities.

Vance wrote to Rezaei in October requesting a meeting. A date for the meeting has not yet been set, but Trump recently told senior aides and foreign leaders that he is open to Vance resuming negotiations. US officials have noted that Vance's activity in Iran diplomacy has surpassed that of special envoys Steve Witkov and Jared Kushner, who have focused more on the Russia-Ukraine issue. A direct meeting between the vice president and a senior Iranian security official is a rare arrangement, demonstrating Washington's willingness to end the conflict. At the same time, this role carries political risks: if Iran refuses to make substantial concessions, a failed negotiation could make Vance a symbol of failure; a successful end to the unpopular conflict could translate into political gains. Vance has publicly blamed the war in part on the Republican Party's midterm election losses, a position Trump has expressed understanding of but insists he will make the same decision. There are divisions within the White House. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and new Chief of Staff Stephen Miller favor maintaining the maritime blockade and sanctions pressure, waiting for Tehran to yield. Speaking on the sidelines of the G7 foreign ministers' meeting in Paris, Rubio said that current economic actions are putting significant pressure on the Iranian regime, and that the president has no immediate need to launch a large-scale military operation. However, he added that the US military is prepared to respond if Iran crosses a red line. Trump threatened on Monday that he might change the status quo, saying he was deploying another aircraft carrier and expressing his hope for an agreement.

Iran responds strongly, imposing several preconditions for its enriched uranium not to leave the country.

Rezaei's rhetoric has hardened recently. In an interview with pro-Iranian media, he emphasized that Iran would not allow even a single grain of enriched nuclear material to leave the country, stating that this material would be used in the design of nuclear-powered ships and submarines. He explicitly denied that negotiations with the US were currently underway, calling related reports "imaginary talks," and warned that if the US launched another attack, US military bases in Europe and elsewhere would be included in the retaliation. Iran hopes to lift the blockade, unfreeze assets, and ease oil sanctions as preconditions for restarting negotiations. Rubio called these demands "completely unrealistic." Middle East mediators proposed confidence-building measures, including the US withdrawing its aircraft carrier and easing port blockades in exchange for Iran allowing some oil tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian diplomats privately expressed skepticism about the prospects of an agreement, fearing that Trump might still launch an attack to prove his decision to go to war was correct. Some officials also worried that the influence of hardliners within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could interfere with the negotiations. The International Atomic Energy Agency previously estimated that Iran possessed approximately 440.9 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium when Israel and the US attacked Iranian nuclear facilities. The actual stock and future trends of these materials remain the focus.

Attacks in the Strait of Hormuz continue, shipping resumes amid oil price fluctuations.

Despite market bets on a de-escalation of tensions, tanker attacks in the Strait of Hormuz have continued to occur frequently. At least 10 ships were attacked in the first 10 days of November, compared to 37 attacks in October, the highest monthly total since the conflict began. Iranian state media reported an attack on the navigation system off Dhidamal Island in Oman, with three sources confirming the attack, demonstrating Tehran's ability to disrupt shipping and restore infrastructure. Shipping industry sources believe the impact may be limited, as backup systems exist at other locations. Gulf exporters, through alternative methods such as ship-to-ship transshipment, restored oil flows to over 80% of pre-war levels in September and October, thanks to US assistance in ensuring passage and increased Saudi exports via the Red Sea port of Yanbu. Oil spills from damaged tankers have reached the coast of Oman, with satellite images showing oil spills in the affected waters. The International Maritime Organization has confirmed over 130 incidents in the region since the conflict began in late February, resulting in at least 25 seafarer deaths. Regarding oil prices, Brent crude has recently fluctuated between $89 and $100. Peace expectations had initially pushed prices down, with one barrel falling to $89.15 on Tuesday, but the ongoing attacks and uncertainty surrounding negotiations have led the market to repric the risk premium, and prices have since rebounded to around $91.81 per barrel.

Following the midterm election defeat, the policy focus shifted from war to a balance between pressure and peace talks.

Following the Republican Party's midterm election defeat, the focus of debate within the White House has shifted from whether to resume large-scale warfare to whether to restart peace talks or maintain the blockade and sanctions until Iran is ready to reach a concrete agreement. Trump privately criticized the June memorandum of understanding, arguing that it gave Iran a window of opportunity to regroup and secure oil revenues; White House officials, however, denied any regret, emphasizing that negotiators acted in good faith. Iran, on the other hand, is attempting to leverage the election results to enhance its bargaining power. The two sides maintain contact through channels such as Qatar, but the foundation of mutual trust is weak, and previous negotiations were interrupted by military strikes.

Editor's Summary

Vance's vision of direct talks with Iran reflects Washington's efforts to reduce the political costs of war following the midterm elections. However, Iran's hardline stance, its uranium enrichment red line, and continued attacks on the Strait of Hormuz indicate a significant gap remains between the two sides on core interests. The blockade and sanctions have put substantial pressure on the Iranian economy, and the recovery of shipping to over 80% has weakened Tehran's bargaining power. However, a lack of mutual trust and the influence of hardliners within the country make a short-term breakthrough difficult. Oil prices are highly sensitive to the progress of negotiations; any substantial progress or further escalation could trigger significant volatility. Current policy focuses more on a combination of economic pressure and limited diplomacy, reducing the probability of a full-scale military escalation. However, a complete ceasefire still requires substantial adjustments to the preconditions set by both sides.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why has Vance become the main negotiator with Iran? How does this differ from the special envoy? A: Vance has been more proactive in diplomacy with Iran, and Trump has explicitly authorized him to lead the negotiations. Compared to the special envoy, who focuses on other issues, Vance directly wrote to senior Iranian security officials and considered face-to-face talks, indicating that his role has shifted from assisting to central. This reflects both the political need to end the conflict and his personal political considerations, as he publicly linked his election defeat to war. Q: What are the specific preconditions for negotiations proposed by Iran? How has the US responded? A: Iran has demanded the lifting of the maritime blockade, the unfreezing of assets, and the easing of oil sanctions as prerequisites for restarting negotiations. Some statements also include ending other conflicts in the region. The US considers these demands unrealistic, and Rubio has clearly stated that he hopes Iran will adjust its position before discussing diplomacy. The two sides are discussing confidence-building measures through mediators, but the core differences remain unresolved. Q: What does Rezaei's statement on enriched uranium mean? A: He emphasized that no enriched nuclear material would be allowed to leave the country and linked it to the need for nuclear-powered ships and submarines, while warning that retaliation could extend to US military bases in Europe. This reinforces Iran's red lines on the nuclear issue, increases the difficulty of including the nuclear issue in any agreement, and also responds to Russia's previous proposal to assist in the removal of enriched uranium. Q: What impact is this having on shipping and oil prices in the Strait of Hormuz? A: Attacks continue, reaching a monthly high in October, with multiple incidents in early November. Iran's strike on the navigation system on Didamar Island demonstrates its disruptive capabilities, but backup systems and US military assistance have restored oil flows to over 80% of pre-war levels. Oil prices are fluctuating between expectations of peace and actual friction; Brent crude rebounded to around $92 after falling to around $89, indicating market caution regarding a rapid and comprehensive ceasefire. Q: What are the internal divisions within the US regarding the next steps? What are the possible future directions? A: Vance leans towards diplomacy, while Rubio and Miller, among others, support maintaining the blockade and sanctions pressure. Trump has softened his stance on further large-scale military action but retains military options and has deployed aircraft carriers. In the short term, the possibility of economic pressure and limited contact running parallel is relatively high. A full resumption of hostilities or a quick agreement would require both sides to make greater compromises on conditions; otherwise, the stalemate may continue. At 10:00 Beijing time, Brent crude oil was trading at $91.89 per barrel.