In a tense and revealing interview on CBS, Senator Marco Rubio mounted a full-throated defense of the Trump administration’s decision to launch a surprise airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, while clashing with journalists over the intelligence, objectives, and strategic implications of the operation. The conversation exposed deep contradictions in the administration’s rhetoric about diplomacy versus war, and raised pressing questions about whether the U.S. has now been pulled into yet another volatile Middle East conflict.
Rubio, a key Republican voice on foreign policy, pushed back aggressively when asked whether the U.S. had definitive intelligence that Iran’s Supreme Leader had ordered the weaponization of their nuclear program. “That’s irrelevant,” Rubio snapped. “They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons.” While U.S. intelligence assessments earlier this year had stated that no political decision to weaponize had yet been made, Rubio dismissed those conclusions and said such distinctions were academic.
He cited the presence of 60% enriched uranium, underground facilities like the Fordo site, and Iran’s ballistic missile stockpiles as proof of malign intent. “Why would you bury things 300 feet under a mountain if not for weaponization?” he asked. “The only countries that enrich uranium to 60% are the ones that already have nuclear weapons or are trying to get them.”
Pressed by the CBS host on whether the U.S. response was premature or inconsistent with a diplomatic approach, Rubio remained steadfast. “This president is not a game player,” he said, referring to Trump. “He made it clear to the Iranians that they had 60 days to make progress on a peaceful agreement. They didn’t. This was the consequence.”
The back-and-forth became particularly charged when Rubio was asked about the trust deficit between Iran and the United States, especially after Trump unilaterally withdrew from the 2015 JCPOA—an agreement that had successfully curtailed Iran’s nuclear capabilities under international oversight. The CBS interviewer noted that the current offer of diplomacy, after two surprise bombings, might seem disingenuous.
Rubio brushed this off. “The trust deficit didn’t start with us,” he said. “Iran is the one sponsoring terrorism. Iran is the one hiding its nuclear program. Iran is the one that blew up our embassies, killed our soldiers in Iraq, and funds terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.”
He emphasized that this was not about regime change but about denying Iran any path to a nuclear weapon. “They can have a civilian nuclear program like other countries. That’s never been the issue,” he added. “The issue is the enrichment, the weapons-grade material, the ICBMs, and the terror proxies.”
Rubio also touched on the broader regional strategy, defending U.S. military presence in places like Bahrain and Kuwait. “We have those bases because Iran is a threat,” he said. “If Iran attacks our personnel, or those of our allies, we will defend ourselves—and we’ll do more than that. We’ll impose costs.”
As the interview progressed, the senator painted the operation as both targeted and successful. “The primary sites were hit in devastating fashion,” he said. “The United States flew into the heart of Iran, bombed their most sensitive locations, and got out before they knew what hit them.”
Yet his insistence on total success was challenged by reporting from The New York Times, which suggested that the Fordo facility—one of the main targets—was damaged but not destroyed. Moreover, intelligence indicated that uranium and key equipment may have been moved ahead of the strike, undermining the supposed tactical precision of the operation.
Despite these contradictions, Rubio insisted the mission had achieved its goal and reiterated that the U.S. is prepared for either diplomacy or further strikes, depending on Iran’s next move. “We have other targets,” he warned, “but we don’t want to go that route. Peace is the preference. That’s up to them.”
Critics, however, were quick to point out the inconsistency in Rubio’s stance—praising Trump as a peace-first leader while defending a massive military escalation. They argue that the airstrikes mark a clear break from Trump’s previous promises to avoid “stupid endless wars,” and that saber-rattling makes diplomatic resolution even less likely.
The broader concern raised by foreign policy experts is whether this escalation opens the door to deeper conflict. With Iran vowing to respond and the international community watching nervously, the path forward remains fraught with uncertainty.
As the interview wrapped, Rubio continued to echo Trump’s line: this was a show of strength that was necessary to prevent catastrophe. “Iran is never going to get a nuclear weapon,” he declared. “Not while Donald Trump is president.”
But with the region on edge, and no diplomatic breakthrough in sight, it remains to be seen whether this military gambit brings peace—or draws the U.S. deeper into yet another war.
