When a president and a vice president publicly diverge on why they are fighting a war at all, that is not a disagreement over nuance. That is an admission that the goal has been shifting as they go.

JD Vance told Fox News that goal number one is keeping fuel affordable for Americans, placing the prevention of an Iranian nuclear weapon second. Donald Trump corrected him in public: stopping Iran's nuclear programme is „goal number one, and always will be”.

A White House explaining what the president said

Press secretary Caroline Leavitt got the assignment every spokesperson dreads - explaining that the two men are actually saying the same thing. According to her, both goals are equally important to Trump, but the nuclear programme is the priority. In other words: equally important, but one is more important.

What sits in the archive is more interesting still. In May, Trump told reporters the only thing that matters with Iran is that they do not get a nuclear weapon, adding that he was not thinking about Americans' financial situation. Three months later his vice president puts exactly that financial situation first. Somebody changed the story - the only question is whether it was because the facts changed or because the pumps did.

The number driving the rhetoric

The average price of petrol in the US has reached 4.02 dollars a gallon - more than a dollar above the level at the start of the conflict. That is the context in which „goal number one” for affordable fuel suddenly appears. Trump argues that not acting against Iran would have cost more, and that he will not apologise to Americans for pricier fuel.

This is the part of a war every campaign team knows: while the fighting lasts, the rhetoric is about principles. When the bills arrive, the rhetoric moves to the cost. And when two men from the same team deliver both versions in the same week, it shows that neither answer is convincing enough to carry a whole campaign.