If you’re a Republican yearning to be the next US President, the dilemma is how to thrill Donald Trump’s Maga devotees while also distancing yourself from the scuzzier sides of his legacy.

Persuading the “base” that you are Trump’s true successor is now a prerequisite to winning the party’s nomination. Yet, breaking away from his bleakest failures will be crucial to winning the general electorate – and, perhaps, when it comes to Trump’s least popular policies, also hanging on to a large share of the party’s faithful.

The two most ambitious of Trump’s would-be successors – Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio – are no doubt feeling this most acutely. As senior figures in Trump’s administration, they are inescapably tied to what is by far his least popular policy: his war with Iran.

Even a less wrathful president would demand that his vice president and top foreign-policy aide support his decision to go to war, at least in public. Yet, how the two are handling this dilemma is proving an intriguing study in contrasts.

Vance has been busy trying to play the game both ways, publicly supporting the war – often in feverish rhetoric – while quietly letting journalists know that he’s always, very thoughtfully opposed it.

Back in April, just five weeks after the US-Israeli bombing campaign began, journalists Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman reported that in private meetings, Vance had argued against the war from the start, warning that it could stir regional chaos, deplete US military stockpiles and cause the Iranians to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.

As all of these calamities were unfolding by the time the article was published, Vance’s prescience seemed impressive. But the journalists also noted that, once Trump decided to go to war, Vance went along. Nostradamus and a good foot soldier – just the impression that Vance would want to make to much of the electorate.

A follow-up article this month reported that Vance also “took the unusual step over the spring and summer of calling US military commanders in the Middle East, Europe and Asia directly, seeking their unvarnished assessments of the Iran war” and that he “came away from some of his conversations with deep concerns about the overall strategy and the prospects for success”. It also said he had incorporated these lessons into his private talks with Trump and others.

The reporters noted that their account was based on interviews with “more than a half-dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity to disclose sensitive information”. I have no way of knowing for sure, but it’s a safe bet that Vance was one of them.

One interesting tell from the article was the absence of a statement saying that Vance had been contacted but declined to comment. This was in direct contrast to others featured in the article.

This is how the game is played.

Meanwhile, Rubio is doing everything he can to avoid the war altogether, which will be quite the trick if he can pull it off, as he currently wears the two key foreign-policy hats: Secretary of State and acting White House National Security Adviser.

Rubio certainly has presidential aspirations. He ran in the Republican primaries in 2016, at the time denouncing Trump as a “con artist”, with Trump returning the favour by labelling him “little Marco”.

Rubio took the job in Trump’s cabinet because foreign policy has long been a core focus of his – and because the role, more than another term in the Senate, might carve a clearer route to the Oval Office.

He sees himself as more conciliatory compared to others in Trump’s orbit, and thus a less divisive candidate in a general election. One affirming sign of this was his Senate confirmation hearing, when he was voted in as secretary of state by 99-1. Most of Trump’s other cabinet choices barely mustered a majority.

So, when Trump went to war with Iran, a move that was certain to be controversial, Rubio cut a low profile. In one behind-closed-doors meeting, according to the April piece, Rubio denounced the idea that the bombing campaign would dislodge the Iranian regime and spur a democratic uprising as “bullshit”. Otherwise, he has said little.

Instead, he has focused on his prime passions – ridding the Western Hemisphere of Communist regimes, vital to both his history as the son of Cuban exiles and as a senator from Florida, where many such refugees live and vote.

Rubio played a huge role in coordinating the Trump administration’s campaign against Nicolás Maduro’s regime in Venezuela and is also taking the lead in the ongoing campaign to destabilise the Cuban government. But Iran, he has tried to stay clear of.

When Trump anointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner and old friend Steve Witkoff to engage in diplomacy with Iran, Rubio didn’t object. At one point, Trump even sent Vance to lead a negotiating team tasked with getting a deal within 48 hours. Again, no problem, since Rubio – and anyone else versed in foreign affairs – would have known the mission was doomed.

While Vance headed to his futile talks, Rubio was attending a wrestling match in Miami, all smiles, alongside Trump.

But it will be quite the stunner if Rubio can evade the tensions of his situation for too long. As a senator, he was part of a bipartisan group pushing for immigration reform and he had been a champion of foreign aid, both of which Trump dashed, to no objection from Secretary Rubio.

Rubio is more intellectually inclined, more seasoned and more genuinely probing than Vance, but he has proved to be no less cynical in his ambitions.

Meanwhile, Trump can’t run for reelection again – the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution bars more than two terms – and despite all his banter about “Trump 2028”, he knows this. He likes to play his underlings off one another. He has reportedly asked friends visiting him in the Oval Office which of the two, Vance or Rubio, would make the better president – while the two were actually in the room with him. For Trump, this may be a bit of fun, but his comments and the impact of his war in Iran, could have long-reaching implications.

Trump’s war with Iran is raging on, and his key advisers and possible successors are trying their hardest to avoid being heavily linked to it. For the likes of Vance and Rubio, their future may depend on it.