With the war against Iran grinding on, Donald Trump has openly suggested he may pin the failure of a ceasefire deal on his own vice president.

The remark — delivered casually during a White House event — has fuelled speculation that Trump is preparing to shift political responsibility if diplomacy collapses. It also exposes growing tensions at the top of the administration as the conflict drags into a dangerous new phase.

A Joke That Sounded Like a Warning

Speaking during an Easter luncheon at the White House, Trump publicly quizzed JD Vance about negotiations to end the war.

When Vance replied the talks were progressing, Trump shot back: “If it doesn’t happen, I’m blaming JD Vance. If it does happen, I’m taking full credit.”

The comment drew laughs in the room but raised eyebrows among political observers, who saw a familiar pattern emerging.

A Pattern of Political Scapegoats

The exchange comes weeks after Trump removed Kristi Noem from her post at the United States Department of Homeland Security.

Her ouster followed reports she had angered the president by suggesting he approved an expensive advertising campaign tied to the department.

The episode marked the first high-profile cabinet dismissal of Trump’s second term.

Behind the Scenes Tensions Over War

Vance has reportedly been among the most sceptical voices inside the administration about the military campaign against Iran.

The vice president — widely viewed as a potential successor in the 2028 United States presidential election — has long promoted a more isolationist foreign policy stance.

According to political reporting, Trump has privately made “snide” comments about Vance’s doubts regarding the conflict.

Diplomacy Stalls as Bombing Continues

The political manoeuvring comes as negotiations appear far from resolution.

Reports suggest Iranian leaders believe they remain in a strong strategic position and are not rushing into talks, even as US airstrikes continue.

That leaves Trump juggling two conflicting narratives — declaring victory on the battlefield while warning the bombing campaign could last weeks more.

If the war drags on, the blame game in Washington may only intensify.

Trump singles out next cabinet member to throw under the bus

JD has serious competition for being the next sap to get tossed. Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr and Howard Lutnick are all up on the block. It has been reported Trump has been quizzing people on just how crazy RFKjr is. One would think that would be a recommendation in Trumps administration, but there are limits it seems. With Noem and Bondi gone, the primal survival scenario/Lord of the Flies, aspect of this administration only intensifies.

People must be blamed as Trump is blameless.

The President cannot sack the Vice President, as the Vice President is elected to office. He can be impeached, but not sacked. On the otherhand, the Vice President can initiate proceedings with likely a higher chance of success to remove the President.

To impeach (remove) the Vice President, the President will need 66 votes from senate, and only for the crimes of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

To remove the President, the Vice President needs 13 votes, and can do so for pretty much any reason. Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr and Howard Lutnick all have cabinet voting rights./

1. Susie Wiles; reportedly concerned the President is being fed rose tinted intelligence reports on the progress of the war. That suggests she is somewhat skeptical of it. Possible support for 25th Amendment.

2. Kelly Loeffler; as Senator, took a "Peace through Strength" position. She opposed Tim Kaine's War Power's Resolution. Traditional Hawkish Views. Likely would oppose.

3. Jamieson Greer; Technocrat, views on war largely unknwon. Will likely vote with the AG

4. John Ratcliffe; Ultra hawkish, to the point of war monger. Would oppose

5. Tulsi Gabbard; most anti-interventionalist, likely to be removed from cabinet. Would likely support.

6. Russell Vought; generally supportive of war where it serves US interests. Less supporting of drawn out engagements. If the war shows signs of bogging down, of has a result where the US economy emerges worse because of it. Put him down as a waverer voting with the AG

7. Lee Zeldin; likely next AG. Hawkish, Trump devotee. Against.

8. Markwayne Mullin; new boy, the plumber. Hawk. Against

9. Doug Collins: Hawkish, but as a veteran, would also be acutely aware of the impact on soldiers when politicians consider them expendible. Waverer.

10. Linda McMahon. Views unknown. Waverer.

11. Chris Wright. Technocrat, views unknown, in favour of economic stability. Waverer.

12. Sean Duffy. Unknown, leans dovish. Waverer

13. Scott Turner; No clear position, but has opposed "endless wars". Waverer

14. Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Consistantly been anti-war on Iraq etc. Likely knows his position is weak. Would support if he gets the chance

15. Lori Chavez-DeRemer. No clear view. Waverer

16. Howard Lutnick; technocrat. No clear views. Uncomfortable associations with Epstein, though likely not of the salacious sort. Support if he gets the chance

17. Brooke Rollins: No clear views expressed. But her Agriculture portfolio mean she might get it in the neck on fallout related to increased food prices. Waverer

18. Doug Burgum: No clear views. Like Rollins, Burgum's portfolio, Energy, means he will likely suffer inevitable fallout due to increased energy costs. Waverer

19. Todd Blanche; he will likely not be in the role long. Politically he is inexperienced. Waverer if he ever gets the chance to vote

20. Pete Hegseth; even though he has been anti-interventionalist, this whole thing is his idea, and he knows without Trump he's on the dole, as even no one in the media likes him anymore, due to bridge burning. Opposed.

21. Scott Bessent: No known position, but he prefers economics to solving disputes. Waverer, but soft.

22. Marco Rubio: Interventionalist. Opposed.

If over Irann, 4 supporting invoking the 25th Amendment, plus Vance, 6 opposed. 12 votes up for grabs, Vance would need 8 of the waverers. Lee Zeldin is the Kingmaker.

Be honest now - were you expecting anything less from the backstabber-in-chief?