Vance Angrily Denies that Bombing Iran Qualifies as Being at War With Iran
Vice President JD Vance adamantly denied that the United States had entered a war with Iran after bombers struck three Iranian nuclear facilities.
Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker opened her interview with Vance on Sunday with the question swirling after President Donald Trump announced the strike. 'Is the United States now at war with Iran?' she asked.
'No, Kristen, we're not at war with Iran,' Vance replied, an answer he also gave ABC's This Week. 'We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.'
Vance praised the U.S.' attack on the facilities, saying B-2 bombers were able to drop '30,000-pound bombs on a target the size of a washing machine and then got back home safely without ever landing in the Middle East or ever stopping other than to briefly refuel.'
Vance continued praising the U.S.' military might, calling the operation a 'testament to the power of the American military.' Still, he claimed, the U.S. sought 'peace.'
'What we said to the Iranians is we do not want war with Iran; we actually want peace,' he said. 'But we want peace in the context of them not having a nuclear weapons program, and that's exactly what the president accomplished last night.'
Only Congress can declare war, according to Article I of the Constitution. The last time it declared war was in 1942, during World War II.
Vance's comments top-lined the administration's position after the Saturday attack, attempting to defuse criticism from the isolationist wing in the MAGA-sphere that the U.S. has drawn itself into an open-ended war with Iran. Iran has vowed a response that would have 'everlasting consequences' for the U.S.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures that the U.S. was not at war with Iran. 'This is not a war against Iran,' Rubio said.
Vance would not comment on whether the U.S. could guarantee that it destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities, including its underground bunker in Fordow, 20 miles north of Qom, Iran. Instead, he said, it would be 'many, many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon.'
'I'm not going to get into sensitive intelligence about what we've seen on the ground there in Iran,' he said. 'But we've seen a lot, and I feel very confident that we've substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon. And that was the goal of this attack. That's why it was a success.'
Vance's support for the mission came three days after an intense phone call with Israeli leaders in which Vance pushed back against U.S. involvement and suggested Israel was trying to goad the U.S. into war.
Conservative war hawks seized on the report, with radio host Mark Levin—who has publicly and privately urged Trump to attack Iran—questioning on Sunday whether it was accurate.
'It's very important that we know either way at some point,' Levin wrote. He later added that a 'solid source' told him the report was inaccurate.
The Daily Beast has reached out to Vance for further comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia's former president says countries are lining up to give Iran their nukes. Analysts are calling his bluff.
A top Putin aide and Russia's former president slammed the US for its strikes on Iran's nuclear site. Among other claims, Dmitry Medvedev said other countries are ready to give their nukes to Iran. Nuclear analysts told BI that Medvedev's claim is logistically and politically ridiculous. Analysts are casting doubt on Russia's former president's claim that "a number of countries" were considering supplying nuclear warheads to Iran after the Pentagon's salvo of bunker-buster strikes there. Dmitry Medvedev, who was president from 2008 to 2012 and is a top aide to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, didn't specify which countries he was referring to in his Telegram post on Sunday. In his post, he downplayed the damage dealt to Iran's vital nuclear sites. As news of the strikes broke on Saturday, the Pentagon was careful to say that it was still assessing the destruction caused by the 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs and multiple Tomahawk missiles it fired at Iran's nuclear sites. Medvedev wrote that the strikes had "entangled" the US in a new conflict. "A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads," he added. Nuclear weapons analysts speaking to Business Insider said they doubted that Medvedev's statement on such transfers is credible. "It's impossible in practice because nuclear weapons are not like a bomb or just something you can carry in a suitcase," said Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher in the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research's weapons of mass destruction program. Nuclear warheads come as an entire system, with people who need to be trained to keep and service them safely, as well as maintenance facilities and equipment. Even tactical nukes, which are more portable and produce a smaller blast, need high-level storage, Podvig added. "Unless you create a nuclear program or almost a nuclear program in the country, there is no way to just give your nuclear weapons to them," he said. Simply giving such a warhead to another country would break the first article of the UN's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Russia and China have signed. Podvig said that in Europe, where the US stations nuclear weapons, the warheads are in American custody. The same can be said of Russia's nuclear weapons in Belarus. "I don't see this being done technically," Podvig said. Politically, Medvedev could likely only be referring to three countries, said Adam Lowther, a cofounder and the vice president of research at the Ohio-registered think tank National Institute for Deterrence Studies. North Korea, China, and Russia are the only nuclear-armed states considered adversaries or rivals to the US. And Lowther said all three know that supplying Iran with nuclear weapons, even just as a deterrent, would risk intense escalation from the US and Israel. "When you give somebody a nuclear weapon, and they can use it, you can't guarantee how they're going to use it," Lowther said. He added that with Tel Aviv and Washington so focused on preventing Iran from fielding nuclear weapons, Tehran would likely only have two choices if it does receive a warhead: Use the bomb or lose it. And if Iran detonates a gifted nuke, Lowther added, American forensics would easily be able to trace the fissile material and bomb design to identify where the weapon originated. "Then that country would be on the US' hit list," Lowther said. Medvedev is known to make bold, hawkish statements toward Ukraine and the US since the outset of the full-scale Russian invasion. He serves as the deputy chairman — second in rank to Putin — of the Kremlin's security council. His rhetoric has often run parallel to the Kremlin's nuclear threats, repeatedly issued as warnings to the West over military aid to Ukraine. Moscow, however, has consistently not followed through with those threats, even when the US escalated its level of assistance to Kyiv. Lowther said he believes Medvedev's statement was a play against Ukraine, a bid to reduce the West's willingness to help Kyiv. "The Russians say: 'You know what? You give the Ukrainians these weapons? Well, we can give the Iranians weapons as well,'" he said. The Israel Defense Forces declined to comment on Medvedev's remarks. The White House and US State Department did not respond to requests for comment sent outside regular business hours by BI. Read the original article on Business Insider
Washington Post
34 minutes ago
- Washington Post
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target , while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies.
Bloomberg
37 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
What's Next After the Initial Fallout from US Strikes on Iran
What's next? The unprecedented US airstrikes on Iran have set traders and governments worldwide on edge, as the Islamic Republic warns of retaliation and Israel shows no sign of letting up in its assault. Asian currencies and stocks fell, European stock futures declined while oil advanced, then erased gains, after Washington struck Iran's nuclear sites over the weekend. China and Pakistan were quick to condemn — even though China hasn't yet offered substantial assistance to Tehran besides rhetorical support and Pakistan is at the same time taking steps to build stronger ties with the White House. The US State Department issued a ' Worldwide Caution ' alert for Americans. More critically, President Donald Trump's decision to deploy bunker-busting bombs — in Washington's first direct military action against Iran after decades of hostility — has pushed the Middle East into uncharted territory. Did the end justify the means? While the US attacks have set back Iran's nuclear ambitions and dealt its clerical regime a humiliating blow, the program hasn't been completely destroyed. The move may ultimately lead Tehran to end international monitoring of its nuclear program and consider going ahead to develop a bomb. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hasn't been seen in public in 11 days but remains in control. Even as diplomatic allies Russia and China have stayed on the sidelines and its network of armed proxies in the region remains weakened, Tehran still has ways to inflict pain on the US as it plans its retaliation. Two supertankers, each capable of hauling about 2 million barrels of crude, U-turned in the Strait of Hormuz after the US airstrikes on Iran raised the risk of a response that would ensnare commercial shipping in the region, according to vessel tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. The two empty freighters then sailed south, away from the mouth of the Persian Gulf. The turning oil carriers offer the first signs of re-routing, something that oil traders will scrutinize. Any disruption to traffic through the strait, a major artery for global crude and natural gas, raises the specter of a spike in energy prices. That's bad news for Asia, which buys more than four-fifths of all the crude produced in the Middle East, 90% of which goes through the Strait of Hormuz.
