U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance gave a lengthy interview on a New York Times podcast and defended the American deal with Iran, while directly addressing concerns in Israel. The interview, published on June 18, 2026, focused on how the agreement differs from Barack Obama’s 2015 JCPOA and on criticism from Israeli right-wing ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.
Vance said the key difference is that the new deal requires the destruction of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile. “The Obama-Iran deal allowed them to create a stockpile of enriched uranium. Our deal ensures that this stockpile is destroyed and eliminated,” he said, calling it “a very big difference.” He added that Iran is now in “an extremely weak position” after major parts of its conventional military and nuclear program were damaged in fighting. He said the stockpile’s destruction has already been agreed and is included in a memorandum of understanding, along with a clear method for carrying it out.
He also said any future economic benefits for Iran would come only from other countries’ investments, not from U.S. taxpayers, and would depend on a fundamental change in Iranian behavior. “It’s a dial,” he said, explaining that benefits would rise only as Iran changes its relationship “with the United States, with the region, with Israel, with everyone.” On Hezbollah, Vance said the deal would change the group’s activity “absolutely,” and rejected the idea that Washington would lift sanctions while Iran still funds terrorism.
Pressed on Israeli objections, Vance said much of the criticism in Israel stems from “misinformation” and panic. He drew a line between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the ministers who attacked the deal, saying Netanyahu had not publicly criticized it and may know its details better. About Ben Gvir and Smotrich, he said, “What exactly is your proposal? You are a nation of nine million people. You cannot just kill your way out of every single national security problem.” He ended by saying the U.S. is working on “real problems, not abstract ones,” and asked critics for their alternative to the agreement.
