While highlighting Trump's "peace through strength" approach and questioning the current administration's handling of Iran are reasonable points, Vance also relies heavily on stirring up fears of Iranian attacks and making some causal oversimplifications.

1. appeal to fear • Vance makes an appeal to fear regarding Iran:

Iran, which launched this attack, has received over $100 billion in unfrozen assets thanks to the Kamala Harris administration. What do they use that money for? They use it to buy weapons that they're now launching against our allies and, God forbid, potentially launching against the United States as well.

This is almost a slippery slope fallacy, but Vance avoids that with the inclusion of the words, "God forbid, potentially." It acknowledges that the consequence is not inevitable, but rather a possibility. This shifts the focus from a deterministic chain of events to a potential threat, making it more of an appeal to fear than a slippery slope.

By using phrases like "God forbid" and "potentially," Vance is attempting to evoke fear and anxiety in the audience, playing on their concerns about national security. He's not arguing that Iran's acquisition of weapons will definitely lead to an attack on the US, but rather that it could happen, and that this possibility should be feared.

This is a common tactic used in political discourse, where fear is often used to sway public opinion and justify certain policies. While the possibility of an attack cannot be entirely dismissed, the use of fear-mongering tactics to exaggerate the threat is a fallacy in itself.

2. post hoc ergo propter hoc • Vance asks the audience to conclude that one event was the cause of another simply because it occurred first:

But when did Iran and Hamas and their proxies attack Israel? It was during the administration of Kamala Harris.

The statement implies that Iran and Hamas attacked Israel because the Kamala Harris administration was in power, without providing evidence that her administration's policies directly caused or enabled those attacks. The timing alone does not prove causation - there could be many other factors involved that led to the attacks occurring during that time period.

We should note that in his previous statement about Iran receiving $100 billion from the Harris administration (see above), Vance had provided a potential causal link or contributing factor for Iran's actions. If those two statements were combined or presented together, it would not necessarily be a case of faulty post hoc reasoning.

The key issue is that Vance did not explicitly tie his "It was during the administration of Kamala Harris" statement back to his previous claim about the $100 billion given to Iran. By not making that connection, the statement functions as an independent argument relying solely on the timing/order of events to assign causation - which is the very definition of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Since he failed to reconnect it to the potential causal factor he mentioned earlier, the statement ends up employing fallacious reasoning for argumentative effect, rather than logical argument.

Meanwhile, Vance is ignoring a more complex set of causal factors, much in the way Walz does when he commits this same fallacy.