US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says no major combat operations needed in Iran

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is speaking on Iran right now. He's already said that the economic campaign is working so well, there's no need for major combat operations. The goal is at some point to expand trilateral Ukraine talks to include the Europeans. Let's listen in. Yeah, I mean, right now, I mean, look, we're not going to pay. Iran, you know, is demanding reparations. They should be the ones paying reparations because they're the ones that have, you know, destabilized the region for long periods of time. They're demanding pallets of cash, which the president's made clear is not going to happen. If they want a nuclear energy program, they should have one like many other countries around the world have. So there's things they can do. But just right now, they just don't seem, you know, at that point now I think they want a deal. There's no doubt they'd like a deal, too, but they're just not ready to make one, apparently. But we're open to changes. But I don't think status quo is the right way to phrase this. Status quo means that things are going to stay static. They're not. They're going to continue to grow. What I'm saying to you is that the economic campaign is so devastating that right now there really is no need for major combat operations. The president has... Basically said that over the last few days, and that's what I told our allies here today. But there's no need for further... Your Gulf allies are saying their economy is devastated by this ongoing situation. So what would you say to reassure them? Well, I don't know. We haven't heard that their economies are devastated. Their oil is getting out. I mean, we can... And in fact, we encourage other countries to join us in the effort to protect shipping. In the end, the Iranians are still launching, you know, a couple of drones a night trying to sink commercial vessels. But oil is getting out on some nights. It's 80, 85 percent of what was getting out pre-conflict. And the reason why it's not 100 percent is because the Iranian oil is not getting out. The only oil that's not getting out consistently through the Straits of Hormuz is Iranian oil. Now, it'd be better if they weren't having a handful of drones fired at them every other day. But we'll continue to defend. And we've actually encouraged our partners to join us in the effort of defending global shipping. We shouldn't have to defend global shipping, but in this particular case, because... The IRGC is intent upon trying to sink these ships. We'll continue to do that. I've been doing it quite effectively. Given the history of Iran lashing out at its neighbors, that the economic sanctions and the blockade having a real bite on their economy will cause them again to lash out against civilian infrastructure. I mean, if they do that, then they'll pay a terrible price. I mean, if Iran decides to escalate and they decide to initiate military action, I don't need to tell you what will happen as a result of it. All I'm saying to you is that right now the economic pressure on Iran is so devastating and is working so well that the president's concluded that for the time being there's no need for major combat operations because we're achieving the same objective through economic means while we defend shipping and we impose the blockade, which is like a historic blockade. No one's ever seen anything like it. How about... I mean, I don't know what their viewpoint is on it in this regard, obviously, and I'm not going to speak for the Israeli government. I'm telling you what the American position is. How about from the G7? Did you get any kind of a response? On what? From the G7, when you raised this with presumably the French and the Germans. And the Italians, the idea of helping on the street. No, I raised it. I didn't get a response, no. Okay, so they're still stuck in the... Well, I think part of the challenge, yeah, look, I mean, part of the challenge we have is there's countries out there that say, well, we're ready to provide forces to help defend shipping once there's no risk of conflict. But if there was risk of conflict, we wouldn't need them. So it's kind of a catch-22. Look, we're going to continue to do it. We've done it quite effectively. We think it's in their interest. Frankly, we think it's in the interest of the world to protect shipping because the U.S. doesn't get any oil from there. We don't rely on Middle East energy for our own economy. So I think these countries should step up. I think a couple are thinking about it, to be honest with you. But you didn't get any hints that might... Well, I don't think the foreign ministers are in a position to make those commitments, to be honest. Those probably would have to be made by the heads of their governments. Did you have signs from the Russian negotiators? In Abu Dhabi thus far, that they are serious about bringing an end, the commitment to bringing an end to the war. Well, that's what we're testing. Obviously, that's I mean, we're it's good that they're there. That's what we're testing. I'm just informed, and I'm not there in Abu Dhabi, so I can't speak to their body language or their attitude towards it. All I can say is they showed up, they're there, they agreed to the trilateral. And I'm reporting to you that, you know, our European allies who are so involved in this and care a lot about it were there as well. They're not at the table yet, but we think they should be. And I think this trilateral eventually will be expanded to include them in order to arrive at a final agreement here. Sorry, just back to Iran. Why is a stalemate on the Iran war beneficial to the United States? It's not a stalemate. You call it a stalemate. I know it's not a stalemate. How is it a stalemate? The United States is imposing extraordinary damaging effects through our sanctions and other measures and the blockade on the Iranian economy that every month continues to collapse. What is their inflation rate? Is it 300 or 400 percent now? I don't know how that's a stalemate. They're bleeding. They're bleeding economically. There's no diplomacy on the horizon. Well, we're open to diplomacy. You're asking me what's happening today, and I'm telling you that the Iranian demands are totally unrealistic. We expect that could change, and if it does, we'll be prepared for diplomacy. And all I'm saying, and on the economic front, is we don't need to conduct military strikes if we're achieving the same objective through economic means and economic pressure. But that's not a stalemate. That's actually not the contrary of a stalemate. It is an increased pressure on Iran that continues to grow every day. If you put a sanction on them today... It hurts, but it hurts more and more as every day goes by because they're losing money every day, and that begins to compound. So that's not a stalemate. On the contrary, that's growing pressure on them that this economic pressure is putting. How does that further demean their nuclear program? Well, they need money for a nuclear program. They need money in order to fund terrorism. For everything they do around the world, be it their support of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Shia militias, their efforts to kill people all over the world, their cyber activities, their nuclear program, all these things cost money. The less money they have available to them, The less money they can use to fund all their malign and nefarious activity. How unified is the administration on this position? Who? How unified is the administration on this position? No vice president, spearheaded. No, but the president of the United States makes these decisions. I mean, ultimately, our job is to execute now, you know, on the president's orders. Now, the president takes a lot of input. from people in his administration. He takes input and ideas from our partners and our allies around the world, to outside experts, to the people he talks to. But in the end, the decision is the president. And once the president chooses a direction, it's our job in this administration to execute on the president's direction. The Iranians have continued to attack ship and going through the strait. Is there a threshold beyond which attacks will lead to a military? I'm not gonna speculate on any thresholds. The president talked about last night, our military is capable and ready at any moment if necessary. to conduct devastating attacks, but we don't see the need for it now because the truth of the matter is that the economic pressure we put on them is incredibly effective, incredibly devastating and we have reason to believe that it's having a true impact on them internally and that will play itself out in the weeks and months to come. How about China? The big gap here is the Chinese purchases of Iranian oil. There won't be much oil to purchase soon. I mean the only oil they can purchase is the oil that's out on the water and there's not much of it left. Let me ask you another China-related question, if I may. Can you talk about the state of discussions with the Chinese on AI guardrails? Have there been serious talks since the last presidential-level meeting? Do you expect them to continue after the next summit coming up? Well, it should be an issue that we raise at the summit. I'm sure it'll be an issue among all the leaders that are at APEC, not just the U.S. and the Chinese on a bilateral basis. And I'm certain it'll be a topic at G20 as well, where the Chinese will be present. I know there's been conversations with them sort of at a technical level, but we don't have anything to announce on it. Obviously, we've heard their perspective, they've heard ours, but that's still a work in progress. Sir, what about this Wang story make you concerned about being able to trust the Chinese on these issues, that they're not playing straight? What do you mean? Well, there are allegations of Chinese spying related to trying to acquire information about NVIDIA's practices. Does that color the way you feel about talks with them to regulate AI? Well, let me just say, I think that the Chinese system is always going to act in the best interest of the Chinese system. And the United States will always act in the best interest of the United States. So we're going to do whatever it takes. I work for the American people. The president represents and works for the American people. We are always going to be on the American side of every issue. Now, we understand the Chinese are going to be on the Chinese side of every issue. The difference between this president... And previous administrations and sometimes other presidents forgot and other administrations and other people in the role that I play now have forgotten that we work for America. We don't work for the global order. We don't work for other countries. We work for the United States. And so on policy matters such as this or anything other, whether it's our bilateral relation with the country, the status of AI, we are always going to be in favor of what's good for America and Americans beyond and above everything else. And that will often put us in conflict or in disagreement with other countries, including China. So we're realistic and open-eyed about it, but I work for America. We're always going to, and the president fights for America, and so we're always going to be on the American side of every issue. What's the status of the trilateral talks between the U.S., Russia, and China right now? Trump said those talks might include denuclearization. Is that something that China's open to ahead of this summit? Well, I don't want to characterize what they're open to or not. Suffice it to say that I think there's an intent to have that meeting. We're working to organize it and to frame it in the appropriate way, and hopefully we'll have some news for you about that fairly soon. But I don't have an announcement on it today other than to tell you what's already been stated, which is that the president wants that meeting to happen if it's possible. We think it should be possible, and that among the topics he believes that should be discussed is the status of nuclear weapons in the world, which the president thinks its proliferation is very dangerous. Secretary Ruga, the Egyptian foreign minister was present today. You weighed $310 million today. We didn't discuss it today, but Egypt is also, I mean, like anything else in foreign policy, there's always a balancing act to further the national interest of the United States. And in the end, Egypt has been a reliable and good defense partner of the United States. You know, we've made requests of them in the past that are key to our national security and they've complied. And so I think decisions that we make reflect that. That doesn't mean you agree with everything another government does. You may have, and I'm not opining about the journalists, I'm just saying in general, there may be things you don't agree with. But at the end of the day, when you make a mature foreign policy, it requires you to balance those things, particularly when a country, you've made requests of them that are important for us, and they've complied with it. And so they've proven to be, you know, good, reliable partners on a number of fronts. There are reports that the U.S. evacuated some military aircraft from another air base. Yeah, I have to refer you to the Department of War on that. I mean, I saw, like, a headline somewhere about it, but I can't comment on the decisions they make, Other than to say that all I will say to you is, We are constantly repositioning forces around the world for a variety of reasons. So I don't want to speak to a specific report. I'd have to refer you to the Department of War on that. I've been here. So you talked about that bleeding. Do you have a timeline for No, I think the way to look at it is you do bad things, bad things will happen to you. That's the way to read it. And at the end of the day, bad things are happening to the Iranian economy. And it's unfortunate. The people of Iran deserve better. But it's their own leaders that are imposing this on them. This is not a country that in the past, for example, when Obama gave them sanctions relief, they didn't use that money to build up hospitals, roads, bridges, and universities. They used that money to build weapons and arm proxies in the region to attack us and other countries. So it's unfortunate that they have to be punished for that and that the Iranian people ultimately pay the price, but that's because they have really bad lunatic leaders. So we just have to deal with that reality. But, you know... For bad behavior, there will be consequences. There has to be. Otherwise, countries like these, regimes like this, will do whatever they want. There's been sanctions for many years. Not like these. The embargo has been on for quite a few months now. Is there a timeline? No, it hasn't been on for a few months. So, for example, the blockade that was initiated, then it was stopped as part of the MOU that they themselves violated. They violated the MOU. They canceled the MOU by attacking shipping again. So if you look at the blockade, they got oil out. During the MOU period, that oil that's now on the water is almost out. So at that point, they won't have any revenue. So you say sanctions have been in place. Never has Iran ever faced the inability to sell energy in the global market like they are today. They've never faced this and other things that we're doing, which I can't discuss, that are having a huge impact on them economically. How big is the MOU? Was the MOU a mistake? Well, I think the MOU was a good faith effort, I guess, to sort of try to figure out diplomatic means, but I think it confirmed for me and for others who you're dealing with here. In the end, they violated the MOU. They insisted that an end to the conflict in Lebanon be part of a ceasefire. Is that one of the demands you consider absurd, or is that something... Well, why would we negotiate Lebanon with Iran? What does Iran have to do with Lebanon? I mean, they can claim whatever they want, but Lebanon is its own country. To figure out the future of Lebanon, we'll deal with Lebanon, not with Iran. Now, I think by saying that to you, they're admitting that they are the ones that are behind Hezbollah that has destroyed that country. Everything bad that's happened to Lebanon has been the direct result of Hezbollah's presence there. We deal with the Lebanese government. We deal with President Aoun. We deal with the Lebanese armed forces. That's who we did an agreement with Israel and Lebanon with. So, um... Why would we talk to Iran about Lebanon? It's none of their business. So you're going to ask Israel to hold back on attacks in Lebanon in order to help reach a facilitation? Well, we've already been engaged. I don't know if you've tracked this, but we've already been engaged in peace negotiations directly between Lebanon and the Israelis. That's created the pilot zones in the south where Iran The Israelis are pulling back from regions and the LAF is taking over them, and we've been on top of that and want that to continue to happen. We are actively now trying to construct a verification model for that so that trusted verifiers can verify that both sides are complying. But this is an issue we're going to work as mediators between Lebanon and Israel, not Iran. Iran has no role to play when it comes to Lebanon other than stop sponsoring and supporting. Hezbollah, because Hezbollah has done tremendous damage to the state of Lebanon and to the people of Lebanon. Did you discuss with your Saudi counterpart the second front kind of that the Houthis have opened with their attacks on Aramco, on Riyadh Airport, on all of these? Oh, I mean, we didn't discuss it here in depth. We discussed it plenty with them quite a bit. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, and we're concerned about that, obviously. And we and others, you know, we have defense agreements with Saudi Arabia and we're. living up to those commitments, and other countries are involved in supporting them as well. But it's another point to be made. If you guys go through the Middle East, talk about all the instability in the Middle East. Houthis, the militias in Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas, the civil war that occurred in Syria that almost destroyed that country. Thank you very much. What do these things all have in common? Behind every single one of these destabilizing activities in the Middle East, there's one common denominator. the Iranian regime. They are behind all the instability in the region. They are the source of instability in the region. And I think the countries of the region realize that as well. Saudi Arabia, others realize it as well. But yeah, we're troubled by what we see with the Houthi engagement, what's happening with the Houthis. And it's a real problem. And I think the Saudis know who's behind it. It's not ultimately the Houthis wouldn't even exist were it not for Iranian support. So that said, it's something we'll continue to help them with and hopefully can be solved. Okay, guys, let's go home. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.