MADRID – In recent weeks, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has issued a series of powerful statements about Iran’s nuclear programme that goes beyond reaffirming the traditional stance within the US facility.
These statements reflect an inner division between political currents with dissent. Numbers like JD Vance support more isolationist policies focusing on domestic interests, but Rubio embodies the wings of neoconservatism and interventionism that historically shaped Washington’s foreign policy.
This clash of approach complicates the path Tehran has consistently supported: diplomatic solutions. In an already vulnerable international context, this internal dynamic and Rubio’s hard-pressed rhetoric risk close the door to negotiation agreements that benefit both parties in the long run.
In a recent interview with networks such as CBS and Fox News, Rubio linked Iran’s right to enrichment of uranium with imminent dangers to regional and global security, suggesting that this capability could be used quickly for the production of nuclear weapons. However, this interpretation distorts the legal and technical frameworks that Iran has repeatedly defended, and firmly denies military intent in its nuclear program. For Tehran, such discourse is perceived as an act of mistrust and hostility that undermines the creation of a grant-grant environment for negotiation, and can perpetuate a cycle of escalation of sanctions and tensions.
Rubio and the interpretation of the imminent nuclear threat
In a recent interview aired on CBS’s face, Rubio said: “If we can enrich all levels, we also have the ability to rapidly enrich the level of weapons grades,” he added that the issue was a fundamental fixture in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a 2015 nuclear agreement that Washington unilaterally retracted in 2018.
In his subsequent remarks to Fox News, Rubio became even more explicit and wary. “When you reach 60% (enrichment), you’re there. Essentially, you’ll become basically the fundamental nuclear state of Iran. According to the secretary, stockpiling uranium enriched at 60% will promote rapid conversion to 90%, which corresponds to the technical ability to manufacture nuclear warheads.
These claims are covered in professional language, but reveal clear political will. This approach fits the vision of interventionism aimed at limiting Iran’s autonomous behavior. In reality, it would require a de facto renunciation of its sovereignty. Such a stance goes beyond what is barely acceptable to Tehran, strengthens its position and complicates the reopening of effective diplomatic channels.
From an Iranian perspective, the right to develop nuclear technology for civilian purposes is recognized by the treaty on the shortage of nuclear weapons (NPT), which it is the signator. The NPT establishes that states have sovereignty to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verification mechanism.
The IAEA has repeatedly found that despite repeated accusations from the US and its allies, Iran’s nuclear programme has not shown a diversion to military targets. In this sense, the United States can interpret the claim that it rejects even low or moderate levels of enrichment as a denial of a legitimate and legally recognized right in Tehran, which can promote distrust.
Diplomacy as a favourable path for Iran
Historically, Tehran has shown a preference for diplomatic negotiations. Arriving after years of multilateral talks, the 2015 nuclear deal was an attempt to establish clear restrictions and surveillance mechanisms for Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting international sanctions that have damaged the economy.
Relations between the two countries have deteriorated considerably since the 2018 US withdrawal from the JCPOA and re-challenging sanctions. Nevertheless, diplomacy remains Iran’s main option, with Tehran insisting that it respects its rights and keeps the door open for negotiated solutions that ensure the safety of the region.
Within this framework, official US statements with strict rhetoric like Rubio can be an obstacle to building the trust needed to advance the dialogue. The perception that Washington does not accept concessions on enrichment can strengthen Tehran’s stance and reduce the willingness to make programmatic concessions.
Risk of eroding diplomatic paths
Hardening of US rhetoric not only affects negotiations with Iran, it also risks destabilizing the region. A scenario in which Iran feels cornered can lead to military escalations and regional arms races, with neighboring countries trying to develop or acquire their own nuclear capabilities accordingly.
Furthermore, imposing unacceptable conditions and denying the right to a peaceful nuclear program could alienate allies and international partners advocating for negotiated solutions. Russia and China, key actors in negotiations in 2015 — repeatedly emphasized the importance of keeping dialogue open and respecting international commitment to avoid conflict.
A realistic perspective: Benefits of the US diplomatic agreement
From the perspective of international relations realism, Professor John Meersheimer analyzes state behavior through the lens of security and power balance. According to this approach, a nuclear agreement with Iran could be beneficial to the United States for several strategic reasons.
First, agreements to establish clear restrictions programs contribute to alleviating tensions in areas historically marked by complex challenges. A transparent framework of cooperation helps prevent misunderstandings and reduce the risk of accidental conflict.
Second, building mutual trust and predictability is essential for long-term stability. An effective international surveillance system will allow all involved parties to have great confidence in each other’s peaceful intentions and promote an environment in which dialogue and cooperation can flourish.
Third, a negotiated framework addressing concerns about nuclear capabilities will help avoid accumulation of weapons across the region. Neighbors may recognize each other’s security concerns and feel relieved by a balanced approach that prioritizes peaceful development and regional stability over competition.
Furthermore, negotiating a peaceful agreement is a safer and less expensive alternative in direct conflict or extreme sanctions that also affect civilians from the perspective of the state seeking to protect their interests. War or long-term conflict will involve global instability as well as US economic and political costs.
Finally, the agreement will help maintain a stable regional balance and promote security and cooperation in West Asia. A more stable context benefits all involved parties, including the US, which holds strategic and economic benefits in the region.