U.S. has "no interest" in putting troops on the ground in Iran, Vance says
Vice President Vance said Sunday that the United States doesn't plan to send ground troops into Iran and there is "no interest" in engaging in a "protracted conflict" with the nation.
The big picture: Vance and other Trump administration officials appeared on Sunday shows to praise President Trump 's decision to carry out a series of airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear sites, while reassuring Americans that the mission — dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer — isn't the launching point for a wider conflict.
Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Vance called the mission a "precise, a very surgical strike tailored to an American national interest" — preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — and that he had "no fear" of a drawn-out conflict.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the sentiment on CBS' "Face the Nation," saying that there are no plans from the U.S. to engage in further attacks on Iran unless they "mess around" and attack Americans or U.S. military sites.
What they're saying: Rubio said Sunday that the U.S. carried out the attack after efforts to negotiate with Iran stalled, but that Trump administration officials are "prepared to talk to them tomorrow."
Both men also dismissed the notion that the U.S. is at war with Iran, with Vance stating that the war is with Iran's nuclear program.
"We destroyed the Iranian nuclear program. I think we set that program back substantially," Vance told NBC News' Kristen Welker.
Zoom out: Vance and Rubio were unable to confirm the extent of the damage done to the nuclear sites, but Iran Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei told CNN that the strike was a "betrayal of diplomacy."
"No one knows what will happen next, but what is sure is that the responsibility of the consequences of this war must be borne by the United States and Israel," he said.
Bagahei refused to say how Iran might respond to the U.S. strike, but said the nation is entitled to "exercise its right of self-defense."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
Former CENTCOM commander: US ‘certainly vulnerable' to attacks in Iraq, Syria
Retired Gen. Frank McKenzie, the former commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said on Sunday that he thinks U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria are 'certainly vulnerable' to retaliatory attacks by Iran. In an interview on CBS News's 'Face the Nation,' McKenzie said he's not surprised that Iran has not yet retaliated following U.S. strikes on its nuclear sites, noting, 'I think Iranian decision making is a little crippled right now because of the loss of senior leaders' at the hands of the Israelis. But he said he's confident the U.S. military has taken steps to prepare for any future attacks. 'To your question about where they might strike, I think we're certainly vulnerable in Iraq. I think we're certainly vulnerable in Syria,' adding, 'And I'm certain that Central Command has done all the things we need to do to harden ourselves against those potential attacks. 'The same for our other bases across the region,' McKenzie said. 'I don't know that it would be localized to the region though.' McKenzie speculated about the possibility of a strike on U.S. soil but noted efforts to achieve such a goal in the past have not been very successful. 'Iran has long harbored the desire to attack us in the United States. They typically have not been effective when they've done that. We've caught them in a couple of plots that are very public, that you're well aware of,' McKenzie said. 'So I think all those things are on the table, but it may take the Iranians a little while to work through this process, because nobody's excited about going to a meeting in Iran right now,' he said. The interview comes as U.S. leaders are warning Iran from taking retaliatory actions against the U.S. and of far-reaching consequences if Iran does not take steps to make peace.
Newsweek
20 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Trolls Iran With Post About 'Regime Change'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump asked on Sunday why there "wouldn't" be "regime change" in Iran if the country's government isn't able to "MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN." The U.S. president mused about the possibility on his social media website, Truth Social, writing: "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!" Trump's comments came after multiple top Trump administration officials said that regime change was not the U.S.'s goal in launching a series of strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities this weekend. "This mission was not and has not been about regime change," Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon on Sunday morning. Vice President JD Vance told NBC's Kristen Welker in a "Meet The Press" interview that the U.S. was not at war with Iran but rather with its nuclear program. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Strait of Hormuz becomes flashpoint in US-Iran conflict
The Iranian Parliament on Sunday approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz after the United States bombed three nuclear sites in Iran. The strait, located between Iran and Oman, remains a critical oil choke point, and closing it could have serious implications for both the global and U.S. economy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in several Sunday interviews, warned against shutting down the strait, calling the move 'suicidal' for the regime. Rubio also called on China — Iran's most crucial oil customer — to encourage the country against shutting it down. 'I encourage the Chinese government in Beijing to call them about that, because they heavily depend on the Straits of Hormuz for their oil,' Rubio said on Fox News's 'Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo.' Iran's Supreme National Security Council will ultimately decide on the move. The threat to block the narrow waterway comes in response to U.S. strikes on three nuclear sites in Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow, located inside a mountain. The Trump administration has argued the strikes, dubbed 'Operation Midnight Hammer, 'were a monumental success.' But it is unclear how much the sites were damaged or how it has set back Iran's nuclear program. The Strait of Hormuz's width and depth allow it to handle the world's largest crude oil tankers, and very few alternatives exist if it is closed, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Approximately 20 million barrels, or 20 percent of global consumption, flowed through the strait in 2024. More than 80 percent of the crude oil and natural gas that passed through the Strait of Hormuz in 2024 was destined for Asian markets, with China, India, Japan and South Korea being the top recipients. These countries would likely be the most affected by any closure. But the U.S. market would also feel some impact if the strait were disrupted. The U.S. has been buying less oil from the Persian Gulf — importing about 0.5 million barrels per day in 2024, according to the EIA. Still, consumers are businesses are still likely to see increased prices, given that oil is traded globally. And it could take months for U.S. oil companies to drill more to compensate for those increased prices, the New York Times reports. Oil prices in the past month increased due to the escalating Israel-Iran conflict, and these are estimated to climb further if Iran were to block the strait. Experts have said they estimate oil prices could increase from $73 per barrel up to $120 per barrel if tankers are blocked. 'If we see any throttling back of the Strait of Hormuz, we'll see a massive increase in the price of oil, and that will impact everything in the U.S.,' Ramanan Krishnamoorti, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Houston, told ABC News this month. Iran has previously seized or interfered with tankers during heightened political tensions, according to the New York Times. While Iran's Supreme National Security Council has yet to make a decision, some experts are skeptical that the country will actually close down the Strait of Hormuz. Experts say the move would likely lead to a near-immediate response from the U.S., and it would be self-defeating to Iran's own market.
