Open letter to the VP: Mr. Vance, you have options. What you don’t have is time - opinion

The author directly addresses Vice President JD Vance, acknowledging his position that the U.S. still has options regarding Iran, even after recent military actions. However, the core argument is that having options is not the same as having time, given Iran's strategic patience.

“

having options is not the same as having time

Mark Levin is cited for his warning that Iran has historically used diplomacy to stall for time, preserve its regime, and continue its long-term objectives. The author agrees that this central warning deserves serious attention, emphasizing that Iran's actions while negotiations proceed are as critical as its stated positions. The piece commends Vance's stance against committing military forces without a clearly defined objective, recognizing the exhaustion from "endless wars."

"Strength should never be confused with recklessness," the author writes, but respectfully pushes back on the idea that options alone are sufficient. The author contends that while the U.S. has demonstrated its ability to strike Iran, the real question is whether America possesses the resolve to protect the gains already achieved. Military victories, the piece argues, are often lost not on the battlefield but afterward, when a successful operation is mistaken for a permanent strategic solution.

“

Strength should never be confused with recklessness.

The author highlights that Iran's rulers have survived numerous challenges, with their greatest strategic advantage being patience. They think in decades, while democratic governments often operate on election cycles. This fundamental difference, the article posits, has defined nearly every confrontation between Iran and the West. Tehran understands that administrations change, and public attention wanes, allowing them to outlast pressure and rebuild. The piece concludes by urging a focus on preventing Iran from rebuilding its nuclear program, framing this as America's greatest challenge.

“

Iran has never negotiated in good faith – that it has repeatedly used diplomacy to buy time, relieve pressure, preserve its regime, and continue pursuing its long-term objectives.