How does Tehran evaluate JD Vance's withdrawal from the negotiations? | Al Jazeera's account of why Vance supports ending the war.
The transfer of J.D. Vance from the Iran case to the internal affairs of the United States is considered a sign of reducing the priority of the agreement in Tehran. Analysts warn that this change may increase the possibility of an escalation of the conflict.
Vance was considered in favor of ending the conflict through negotiations due to the economic costs of the war and the opposition of public opinion. He was previously involved in a temporary agreement to end the war and reopen shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. On the other hand, Rubio emphasizes the economic pressure and isolation of Iran, and some military officials support the new action.
The contacts continue through mediators, but the chance of an opening is limited. Iran's lack of confidence in Trump's adherence to possible agreements is also an important obstacle on the way to negotiations.
The continuation of the situation of neither war nor agreement, together with the blockade and sanctions, exerts heavy pressure on the people of Iran. Analysts see this impasse as dangerous.
Some Iranian officials have raised the possibility of taking action against US ships, vessels or bases; However, estimates say that Vance's departure will not necessarily change Washington's policy.
Read the details in Akhtaznews.