Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the Trump administration’s military campaign against Iran on Sunday, as the White House continued to face an unresolved standoff with Tehran. His remarks came days after Vice President JD Vance said the conflict had contributed to Republicans’ heavy midterm losses.
Rubio argued that President Trump had taken on a difficult issue other presidents had avoided. Doing what he believes is necessary, he said, does not always mean doing what is popular.
Vance had written on social media the previous week that the war was the reason Republicans lost. He said an honest discussion about the party’s path forward needed to begin with that assessment.
In the same post, Vance cited an unnamed pollster who said voters leaving the GOP wanted the administration to end the conflict, tackle inflation and living costs, prioritize American interests, and reconsider its relationship with Israel.
Polling offers a more complicated picture. A voter survey found that 89% of respondents considered the cost of living a crucial or major factor in their congressional vote, while 74% said the same of the war with Iran. The results point to widespread economic concerns, though the issues may overlap and do not show which one ultimately drove voters away from Republicans.
Vance’s office did not respond to repeated requests for clarification about what ending the conflict would involve, including whether it meant lifting the U.S. blockade, withdrawing American forces or reaching further agreements with Tehran.
The disagreement is unfolding as Republicans look toward the 2028 presidential race. Trump recently named Rubio as a possible contender in an interview. Meanwhile, some longtime Trump donors are said to be uncertain about backing Vance, concerned that his connection to the administration and the party’s midterm losses could weaken his prospects. Some have reportedly considered Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and other Republicans instead.
Trump and Vance are also pursuing a new diplomatic opening with Iran. Qatar is mediating discussions about a possible agreement that could ease the U.S. blockade and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Trump met with Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani on Monday to discuss the mediation and possible terms for ending the conflict.
Rubio was doubtful that negotiations were close to a breakthrough, saying Iran’s demands remained unrealistic. Vance has taken part in indirect talks with Iranian representatives through regional mediators in recent weeks.
Asked about the midterm results, Rubio said he does not hold political office and generally avoids commenting on domestic politics.
Trump says he agrees with Vance on the war’s political impact
Trump initially said Operation Epic Fury, launched against Iran in February, would involve four to five weeks of combat. More than eight months later, the wider confrontation continues, despite major U.S. combat operations ending in April.
A June memorandum of understanding with Iran did not produce a lasting settlement. The administration then returned to economic and military pressure, while limited strikes, maritime tensions and disputes over Iran’s missile capabilities and energy shipments through the Strait of Hormuz continued.
Vance helped lead the negotiations that produced the June agreement before it fell apart. At the time, Trump joked that he would take credit if the deal succeeded and blame Vance if it failed.
The vice president has previously defended the military campaign, saying U.S. forces had substantially weakened Iran’s conventional military and its ability to threaten commercial shipping.
Ludovic Hood, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East, said Vance had signaled for months that he did not fully agree with Trump on Iran. His social media post, Hood said, was striking. Hood also questioned whether the war alone explained Republican losses, pointing to broader economic frustrations among voters.
Trump rejected the idea that Vance’s comments had damaged their relationship. He said Vance was right, though he thought the vice president could have gone further in supporting the administration’s actions against Iran.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has also defended the campaign, describing it as courageous and historic. Questions have arisen about Hegseth’s future in the administration, but Trump has said he intends to keep him as Pentagon chief.
There is still disagreement over whether the administration achieved its military goals and what dangers remain. Retired Army Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis, a veteran of four combat deployments, argued that the campaign had not met the objectives Trump set out when it began.
On Feb. 28, Trump said the operation would destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and production facilities, eliminate its navy and stop Tehran’s regional proxies from destabilizing the Middle East. Davis said that, eight months and nine days later, none of those goals had been achieved.
The White House has offered a different assessment. In April, the administration said U.S. forces had accomplished the operation’s military objectives, citing damage to Iranian military infrastructure and a significant reduction in the country’s missile and naval capabilities.
Davis acknowledged that American strikes had inflicted serious damage on Iran’s conventional military. But he said Tehran could still threaten U.S. forces and regional allies with missiles, drones and naval assets, some of them protected in underground facilities. Renewed major combat, he warned, could invite further retaliation without eliminating those capabilities.
Davis argued that striking the same targets with the same weapons would not produce a different result. He said stepping back might look like an admission of defeat, but would still be preferable to resuming operations that could deepen the costs of failure.
Hood disagreed with abandoning pressure on Tehran. He described Iran’s government as a serious threat to regional stability and American interests, and said the country had long supported international terrorism. A nuclear-armed Iran, he added, would pose an even greater danger.
Hood said the administration needed to explain its goals more clearly, including whether it was seeking major concessions on Iran’s nuclear program or a political change in Tehran.
