President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance are facing growing questions over whether they have different priorities in dealing with Iran, with Vance placing greater emphasis on keeping fuel prices low while Trump insists that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon remains the administration’s top objective.

Vance said in a Fox News interview last week that the administration’s first priority was to keep oil and gas prices affordable for Americans, followed by ensuring that Iran could not develop a nuclear weapon.

“That’s goal number one – keep oil and gas cheap for Americans all over our country and then obviously goal number two is ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon,” Vance said.

Trump appeared to push back against that ordering of priorities in a Truth Social post on Monday.

“The number one Goal is, and always will be, that Iran cannot have, in any way, shape or form, a Nuclear Weapon,” Trump wrote.

The differing emphasis comes as the Iran conflict continues to put pressure on fuel prices and create political challenges for Republicans ahead of the midterm elections.

Gas prices become political problem

The cost of fuel has emerged as a major concern for American voters, with gasoline prices remaining elevated amid disruption linked to the conflict and uncertainty surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.

GasBuddy petroleum analyst Patrick De Haan said the national average for gasoline had climbed by nearly eight cents in a week to $4.02 a gallon. Diesel prices also rose sharply, reaching $5.42 a gallon.

Higher fuel costs could become a significant political liability for Republicans, who control the White House and Congress. Voters frequently blame the party in power when household costs rise.

The Strait of Hormuz has become particularly important because of its role in global energy shipments. Trump has taken an increasingly aggressive position over efforts to reopen the waterway, including threatening Oman over its talks with Iran.

White House denies disagreement

Despite the contrasting statements, the White House has rejected suggestions that Trump and Vance are divided over Iran.

“There is no divide,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said.

Kelly said Trump had consistently made Iran’s nuclear programme a central concern and praised Vance for advancing the president’s agenda.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also previously said that keeping energy prices low and preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon were equally important objectives for Trump.

Vance has likewise sought to dismiss suggestions of a rift, saying Trump makes the final decisions while administration officials debate possible strategies.

“The president and I, first of all, he makes the decisions, and we all try to implement the decisions in accordance with the president’s wishes,” Vance said when asked whether there was “daylight” between him and Trump on Iran.

He added that officials have “debates and conversations” over policy, but that the administration remains united once Trump makes a decision.

Vance’s political future adds another layer

The disagreement is also significant because Trump and Vance face very different political calculations.

Trump is serving his second term and cannot seek another consecutive term, leaving his legacy as a major consideration.

Vance, meanwhile, is 42 and widely viewed as one of the potential successors to Trump and a possible Republican presidential contender in 2028.

Trump has already told donors that “we need to elect JD” during discussions about the next presidential race, although advisers have stressed that the remark does not necessarily mean Trump has chosen Vance as his preferred successor.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is also viewed as a potential contender.

That leaves Vance balancing two competing priorities: maintaining close loyalty to Trump while avoiding becoming too closely associated with policies that could prove unpopular with voters or damage his future political prospects.

For now, both Trump and Vance insist they are aligned on Iran. But their differing emphasis on fuel prices versus Iran’s nuclear programme underscores the political and strategic tensions surrounding the administration’s approach to the conflict.