Two competing diplomatic frameworks have emerged from the Trump administration, one led by Vice President JD Vance on Iran and the other by Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Lebanon, with immediate and contradictory consequences on the ground. The Vance-negotiated memorandum, signed with Iran in Islamabad and advanced in Switzerland, includes a clause demanding Israel’s full withdrawal from Lebanon. The Rubio-brokered Lebanon agreement, by contrast, contains a secret annex—published by Israeli media—that grants the Israeli military freedom of action in a southern security zone and a monitoring role over Hezbollah’s disarmament, while referring only to a “redeployment” rather than a withdrawal. In Beirut, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berry, who also leads the Hezbollah-allied Amal movement, has rejected the Rubio framework as “contradictory and impossible to apply,” warning it could lead to the “balkanization” of Lebanon. Hezbollah itself has stated that the Lebanese government surrendered to US pressure, effectively trampling the first clause of the Vance memorandum.

Viewed from Washington, the division reflects both policy substance and the 2028 presidential ambitions of the two men. White House and State Department spokespeople insist there is “one camp—President Trump’s camp,” but administration officials, speaking anonymously, confirm that Rubio was so sceptical of securing an acceptable Iran deal that he declined to head the US delegation. Vance then asked Trump twice for the lead role and was granted it. The vice president’s camp includes envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, while Rubio works closely with Ron Dermer, a senior Israeli strategist reinstated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to front the Lebanon negotiations. Analysts in Washington note that Vance has repeatedly criticised Israeli actions in Lebanon for complicating Iran talks, whereas Rubio has remained publicly supportive of Israel. Trump’s semi-joking remark that he would blame Vance if the Iran talks fail is interpreted by some former diplomats as setting the vice president up for failure.

In Tehran, the clerical establishment has moved to constrain its negotiators. The Assembly of Experts—a body that constitutionally outranks the presidency, parliament, and foreign ministry—issued a public admonition signed by 68 of its 88 members, instructing President Masoud Pezeshkian, parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to adhere strictly to ten red lines defined by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Russian foreign policy circles, cited in regional media, warn that Washington is using the memorandum of understanding as a trap to buy time and reorganise the battlefield, a view echoed by Brussels-based analyst Elijah Magnier, who argues the US has transformed the MoU into a “pressure machine.”

The two tracks now operate on a collision course. The Iran truce remains fragile, tested by repeated exchanges of fire in recent days, while the Lebanon agreement faces implementation hurdles amid domestic opposition and Iranian pressure. The Vance memorandum’s call for a full Israeli withdrawal stands in direct contradiction to the Rubio framework’s provisions for an ongoing Israeli security role. No formal next steps have been announced, but the competing processes are expected to intersect as both dossiers advance, with the potential to either reinforce or unravel each other depending on how the internal administration dynamics are resolved.