VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — Vice President JD Vance pushed back forcefully Wednesday against a growing bipartisan chorus of critics attacking the Trump administration’s Iran memorandum of understanding, insisting before a crowd of U.S. service members that America’s decision to negotiate with Tehran is driven not by weakness but by the overwhelming strength the military delivered through Operation Epic Fury.
Vance visited Naval Air Station Oceana to celebrate America’s 250th anniversary, using the platform to defend the administration’s diplomatic posture against a wave of criticism from lawmakers in both parties who have argued the June 17 MOU gives Iran far too much in exchange for far too little.
“Why do we engage in negotiation? Because of you, it’s not out of weakness, but it’s out of strength,” Vance told the troops assembled before him.
What the Military Accomplished
Vance grounded his defense of the negotiations in a direct accounting of what American forces achieved during Operation Epic Fury, the U.S.-Israeli joint campaign against Iran that began February 28 and concluded in May. He described three explicit missions the president assigned — and told the troops that all three were accomplished.
Operation Epic Fury began on February 28, 2026, with the U.S. and Israel launching coordinated joint military operations that concluded on May 5. Vance told the airmen that Trump gave them three specific objectives: destroy Iran’s conventional military capability, destroy Iran’s nuclear program, and destroy Iran’s defense industrial base so thoroughly that any future attempt to rebuild would be nearly impossible.
On the first objective, Vance was blunt. “Their navy is at the bottom of the ocean and they have no ability to project power like they did even 12 months ago,” he said. On the third, he told troops they had succeeded in dismantling Iran’s capacity to reconstitute — ensuring that even if Tehran wanted to rebuild, it would be, in Vance’s words, “hard pressed to do it.”
It is against that backdrop, Vance argued, that Trump is now negotiating — not from a position of desperation or diplomatic retreat, but from one of complete strategic dominance.
Bipartisan Backlash
Not everyone in Washington is convinced. The MOU, signed by Trump at the Palace of Versailles on June 17 during the G7 summit and countersigned by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Tehran, has drawn stinging condemnation from prominent Republicans and Democrats alike.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said he is “concerned that the memorandum of understanding negotiates away the victories of Operation Epic Fury in ways that are completely out of step with the President’s goals.”
Wicker specifically criticized the $300 billion fund for the reconstruction and economic development of Iran, saying that although it would not be funded by U.S. taxpayers, it “would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison.”
The Mississippi Republican also said he believes it would be “an error to force Israel to stand down against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization that continues to attack Israel on its northern border,” and said he opposes the U.S. lifting any sanctions on Iran or unfreezing Iranian funds in exchange for Iran’s “mere agreement to negotiate for another 60 days.”
“The Iranian regime has not renounced its ultimate goal — ‘Death to America, Death to Israel,'” Wicker wrote. “The regime will invest every penny it receives to further that aim. President Trump has pursued peace through strength. I hope the intermediaries working on this deal are not undermining that objective.”
From Both Sides of the Aisle
Wicker was not alone. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, told reporters he thinks the president is getting “some really bad advice on this deal,” adding: “History demonstrates that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is an exceptionally bad idea.”
Democratic senators were equally scathing. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: “When you look at the 14 points that the administration has agreed to, it looks like Iran has won on just about every one of them.” Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal called it a “seemingly disgraceful deal” that “looks like an unconditional surrender, not for Iran, but for the U.S.”
Even some conservative commentators and media figures joined the chorus of opposition. Fox News host Mark Levin offered what was described as a point-by-point takedown of the agreement, warning that during the next 60 days the MOU “requires serious changes if not outright abandonment.”
Vance’s Counter
Standing before the troops whose sacrifice, in his framing, made the deal possible in the first place, Vance argued that those attacking the administration are making the same mistake that plagued American leadership in Iraq — prioritizing the act of military engagement over its outcome.
Vance argued that the very people attacking Trump for negotiating are the ones who “encouraged us to just go a little bit further and just drop a few more bombs” in places like Afghanistan, while never once being willing to answer the question of what those bombs were actually for.
“And I look at the American media these days and I hear people who are attacking the president of the United States for negotiating even though the president is negotiating from a position of strength because of you,” Vance said. “He’s negotiating from a position where Iran’s nuclear program has been destroyed and their conventional military has been destroyed, too.”
The administration has maintained that any economic benefits flowing to Iran under the MOU are conditioned on continued progress. “Fundamentally, that money is not going to be unfrozen unless we continue to see progress, and that will obviously be a big part of the negotiation in the days to come,” Vance told reporters in Switzerland earlier this week after meeting with Iranian negotiators.
Whether that framing is enough to quiet the critics remains to be seen. What was clear Wednesday in Virginia Beach is that Vance intends to make the argument directly to the people he says made the negotiations possible — the men and women in uniform. “We engage in negotiation because of you,” he told them. “It’s not out of weakness, but it’s out of strength.”