'It's pretty bad': Vance's own allies chilled by his 'mind-boggling' about-face on war

Vice President JD Vance is facing political backlash from his own allies after abandoning his core anti-war stance to support the Trump administration's military strikes on Iran.

Just three years ago, Vance built his political brand on opposing endless foreign wars. He championed Trump in 2023 specifically because the then-former president "started no wars." But now, as the administration launches sweeping military operations against Iran, Vance's former supporters are furious — and questioning whether he ever believed anything at all, Politico Magazine reported Tuesday.

"It's pretty bad for Vance," one prominent conservative nonprofit leader admitted. "He had to perform the dutiful task of being the subordinate and trying to convince people like us that this was actually in good hands — and that’s a tough pill to swallow.”

Vance was conspicuously silent following the strikes, drawing criticism for not even tweeting about the operation.

“People are really fixated that Vance has not tweeted. It’s kind of a huge problem,” a House Republican official said. “The fact that he hasn’t tweeted — that was kind of what was dominating people’s conversations about this, and the fact that he wasn’t with the president.”

Even worse, long-time Vance ally Sohrab Ahmari published a blistering critique in UnHerd, accusing the vice president of capitulating to "neoconservative hawks."

"The Vance who once sharply critiqued a ‘foreign policy of moralizing’ is overseeing strikes explicitly aimed at freeing the people of Iran,” Ahmari wrote. “For those of us who have been inside these circles and debates, the ironies are mind-boggling."

Restraint advocates are now openly questioning Vance's sincerity. One insider pointed out his religious conversion and his past criticism of Trump.

“This is a guy who has converted from atheism to Catholicism, the guy who called Trump ‘Hitler’ who is now his vice president,” said the nonprofit leader. “Am I confident that he is entirely moored or tethered to any one perspective or worldview? No.”