United States Vice President JD Vance has sent a letter to Iran’s security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, in an 11th-hour push to restart peace talks, according to US media reports.

The letter, which has reportedly been “received well” by Iran, aimed to gauge whether the US and Iran can narrow their differences enough to stave off a potential new round of US strikes on Iran, The Wall Street Journal has reported.

end of list

The outreach comes as Trump warns the US’s Gulf allies to prepare themselves for a brief, high-intensity military campaign after next week’s US midterm elections, according to the Journal. Trump previously said the US may “do another little Epic Fury”, referring to the military operation against Iran that began in February.

So, what does Vance’s letter mean for the prospects of renewed US-Iran conflict – or a return to negotiations?

What was in the letter?

Vance’s letter to Rezaei, who heads Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, has not been published, but several US media outlets have reported on its contents.

The Journal quoted an informed source as saying the letter and follow-up discussions did not cover specific peace terms, but rather a potential “framework for negotiations”.

Another source told the Journal the goal was to see if “Tehran and Washington could find enough common ground to persuade Trump not to give a final order for a short, intense attack on Iran in the coming weeks”.

The New York Times reported that Vance’s letter proposed a meeting between US and Iranian officials soon, with Vance heading a US delegation as he did during previous US-Iran talks in June.

The Times reported the letter was passed to Rezaei by Qatari mediators on Sunday. Vance called for direct talks and said Iran’s nuclear programme would have to be on the table from the outset, according to US and Iranian officials quoted by the media.

If Iran accepts, the negotiations could take place as soon as next week, said the officials, naming Qatar or Turkiye as possible venues.

How has Iran responded?

Iran has not publicly commented on the letter, but the Times reported that it had been “received well by Iran’s leaders”.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also spoke of ongoing negotiations in a social media post on Wednesday, saying Iran “continues to give diplomacy a chance”.

Rezaei is expected to officially respond to Vance’s letter on Thursday, according to the Times.

Hamidreza Azizi, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that Vance’s move to address the letter to Rezaei is significant, reflecting a possible shift in Washington’s view of who holds influence in Tehran.

“This could indicate that the Americans believe changes in Tehran’s internal power dynamics have created better prospects for achieving something through direct engagement with Rezaei,” he said.

How is this letter different from previous US attempts at talks?

Vance has consistently appeared more averse to drawn-out military conflict with Iran than Trump. While publicly backing the war, the vice president reportedly preferred to continue with more intensive diplomacy before the US joined Israel in the war on Iran in February. He has since privately voiced concerns about the protracted conflict, according to US media reports.

There have been mixed messages, however, regarding Trump’s input in Vance’s latest outreach attempt. The Journal reported that Trump directed Vance to send the letter to Rezaei, but Trump later disputed that.

Speaking to reporters, Trump said he had given Vance the go-ahead to reach out to Iran, but characterised the initiative as aimed at helping Iran “with medical supplies and various things”.

Ali Vaez, deputy programme director for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that Tehran sees Vance as “someone who has both the president’s ear and an appreciation of the price of failure”.

“Unlike Trump, who sees escalation as a source of leverage, Vance appears more attuned to its diminishing returns,” said Vaez. “But a more credible messenger alone cannot bridge a chasm of substantive disagreements.”

Rouzbeh Parsi, an Iran analyst who is an affiliated researcher at Lund University’s Department of History and Human Rights Studies in Sweden, described Vance as the “voice of reason” on Iran within the Trump administration, saying his signals have been “the least volatile and unpredictable”.

However, Parsi told Al Jazeera that Vance’s position has “never proven to be sturdy enough to actually sway Trump”.

“Thus, while the optics with Vance look better than anyone else in the Trump administration, I doubt that they [Iranian officials] give the outreach much credence until Vance proves able to actually deliver something on his own,” he said.

Azizi also said Tehran is aware of the limits of Vance’s influence within Trump’s administration.

“We have seen two wars in less than a year, despite Vance’s objections and differing views,” he said. “For that reason, I believe the leadership in Tehran still views US initiatives and military threats with considerable suspicion.

“At the end of the day, Trump makes the final decisions – and that he has proven to be unpredictable and difficult to trust – remains a major factor shaping Iranian decision-making at this moment,” Azizi added.

Why has Trump warned Gulf states to ‘prepare’?

Trump has reportedly told Gulf allies to prepare for renewed conflict amid signs they could be increasingly exposed to Iranian retaliation.

Tehran has repeatedly warned that it will respond more aggressively to any new wave of US-Israeli attacks, including by hitting oil sites, undersea cables, data centres and AI facilities in the Gulf.

“Our strategy is ‘zero red lines’,” said Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf in a statement on October 21.

Against that backdrop, Gulf countries have stepped up diplomacy with Iran, with Saudi and Qatari diplomats, along with officials from Pakistan and Turkiye, participating in talks with Iranian officials in Tehran on Monday.

Is a US strike likely after the midterms next week?

Yes, according to many analysts.

Vaez said the risk is “dangerously high”, with the November 3 elections possibly marking “the expiration of [Trump’s] political restraint.”

“The military machinery is being assembled and the diplomatic clock is running down,” said Vaez. “It’s a mistake to think Trump will be a lame duck after the midterms. He’s more likely to become a flame duck, taking bigger risks.”

Marzieh Kouhi Esfahani, assistant professor of politics and international relations of the Middle East at Durham University, UK, also said the likelihood of new strikes is “quite high”.

“Both sides are determined to get out of this no-war-no-peace stalemate,” she told Al Jazeera. “The likelihood of that… moving towards more war is much higher than peace.”

Parsi said a potential new military campaign could be extremely destructive.

“Since both sides feel the pressure to prove themselves, this coming military exchange will be more significant and cause more devastation and bloodshed,” he said.