J. D. Vance is intent on putting daylight between himself and the policies that led to Tuesday’s results. He’s been hinting for a long time at being Tucker lite, and his comments were in line with that: he blames the Iran war for the loss.

As discussed at Legal Insurrection, he conveniently leaves his own role out:

I would argue that Vance’s overriding faith in diplomacy left him naive about the terrorists who run Iran. The administration pursued negotiations with people who either had no intention of honoring their commitments or lacked the authority to speak for the IRGC leaders calling the shots.

I believe that had the U.S. and Israel stayed the course militarily, the war would have ended by now. Instead, the diplomatic approach Vance championed has, in my judgment, prolonged the conflict.

I would agree with that analysis.

Plus, from what I’ve seen regarding exit polls, the economy was a far more important factor than the Iran war in driving the dismal results of the election. Now, it’s true that gas prices – which affect other prices – rose as a result of the war (although not solely the war). But that’s not really upset about the war itself, although that exists too especially in those who consider that Trump promised that even a military action such as the one against Iran would not be happening.

Vance also said we need to “change our relationship to Israel.” He certainly doesn’t mean to get closer to Israel. I see this as a winning proposition with the Buchanan-esque Tucker-esque part of the right as well as the left, but Vance certainly isn’t going to win elections by appealing to leftists. He seems to think this is his best approach, however.

I can only imagine that the mullahs and the IRGC are as happy as clams over this election and over Vance’s remarks. Some people think Trump has some sort of mop-up operation in mind before the new Congress is installed. I tend to doubt it, but it’s certainly possible.

It seems to me that another message Vance gives is that the US isn’t going to fight any wars. The Iran war isn’t like any other US war of which I’m aware: virtually no troops and almost no casualties. If we can’t tolerate a “war” like that, we have become a fangless nation.

I suppose if there were to be an actual literal invasion of the US, or if a nuclear weapon destroyed a US city, we’d fight. But I don’t think that sort of “invasion” or war is likely. No, I think we’re seeing the invasion already and we will continue to see it. The border will become permeable again. And we will have more elected officials like El-Sayed and the leftists who are united with him.