MADRID – In recent weeks, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made a series of strong statements about Iran’s nuclear program that go beyond reaffirming a traditional stance within the American establishment. 

These remarks reflect an internal division between political currents with opposing views. While figures like JD Vance favor a more isolationist policy focused on domestic interests, Rubio embodies the neoconservative and interventionist wing that has historically shaped Washington’s foreign policy. 

This clash of approaches complicates a path that Tehran has consistently favored: a diplomatic solution. In an already fragile international context, this internal dynamic and Rubio’s hardline rhetoric risk closing the door to a negotiated agreement that would, in the long term, benefit both parties.

Rubio, in recent interviews with networks such as CBS and Fox News, linked Iran’s right to uranium enrichment with an imminent danger to regional and global security, suggesting that this capability could be rapidly used to produce a nuclear weapon. However, this interpretation distorts the legal and technical framework that Iran has repeatedly defended, categorically denying any military intent in its nuclear program. For Tehran, such discourse is perceived as an act of distrust and hostility that undermines the creation of a conducive environment for negotiations and may perpetuate a cycle of sanctions and escalating tensions.

Rubio and the Interpretation of an imminent nuclear threat

In a recent interview aired on CBS’s Face the Nation, Rubio stated: “If one is capable of enriching at any level, they basically also have the ability to rapidly enrich to weapons-grade levels.” He added that this issue had been a fundamental sticking point in the 2015 nuclear agreement—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—which Washington unilaterally withdrew from in 2018.

In subsequent remarks to Fox News, Rubio was even more explicit and alarmist: “Once you reach 60% [enrichment], you are 90% of the way there. Essentially, you become a threshold nuclear state, which is basically what Iran has become. They are on the brink of having a nuclear weapon. If they decide to do it, they could do it very quickly.” According to the secretary, stockpiling uranium enriched to 60% would facilitate a rapid conversion to 90%, which corresponds to the technical capacity to manufacture a nuclear warhead.
While these assertions are cloaked in technical language, they reveal a clear political will. This approach fits within an interventionist vision aiming to restrict Iran’s autonomous action, which in practice would amount to demanding a de facto renunciation of its national sovereignty. Such a stance, beyond being scarcely acceptable for Tehran, risks hardening positions and complicating the reopening of effective diplomatic channels.

From Iran’s perspective, the right to develop nuclear technology for civilian purposes is recognized by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to which it is a signatory. The NPT establishes that states have the sovereign right to research, produce, and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, always under the verification mechanisms of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The IAEA has repeatedly certified that Iran’s nuclear program shows no diversion towards military objectives, despite recurrent accusations from the United States and its allies. In this sense, the U.S. insistence on rejecting even low or moderate-level enrichment can be interpreted in Tehran as a denial of a legitimate and legally recognized right, fueling mistrust.

Diplomacy as Iran’s preferred path

Historically, Tehran has shown a preference for diplomatic negotiation. The 2015 nuclear deal, reached after years of multilateral talks, was an attempt to establish clear limits and monitoring mechanisms for Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting international sanctions that had damaged its economy.

Since the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 and the reimposition of sanctions, relations between the two countries have considerably worsened. Nevertheless, diplomacy remains Iran’s primary option, and Tehran has insisted on keeping the door open for a negotiated solution that respects its rights and ensures regional security.

Within this framework, public statements by U.S. figures with rigid rhetoric such as Rubio’s may become obstacles to building the trust necessary to advance dialogue. The perception that Washington will not accept any concessions regarding enrichment could harden Tehran’s stance and reduce its willingness to make programmatic concessions.

Risks of eroding the diplomatic path

The hardening of U.S. rhetoric not only affects negotiations with Iran but also risks destabilizing the region. A scenario where Iran feels cornered could lead to military escalation or a regional arms race, with neighboring countries seeking to develop or acquire their own nuclear capabilities in response.

Moreover, imposing untenable conditions and denying the right to a peaceful nuclear program may alienate allies and international partners advocating for a negotiated solution. Russia and China—key actors in the 2015 negotiations—have repeatedly emphasized the importance of keeping dialogue open and respecting international commitments to avoid conflict.

A realist perspective: The benefits of a diplomatic agreement for the U.S.

From the standpoint of international relations realism, Professor John Mearsheimer analyzes state actions through the lens of security and power balance. According to this approach, a nuclear agreement with Iran could be beneficial for the United States for several strategic reasons.

First, an agreement that establishes clear limits program would contribute to easing tensions in a region historically marked by complex challenges. A transparent framework of cooperation can help prevent misunderstandings and reduce the risk of accidental confrontations.

Second, building mutual trust and predictability is essential for long-term stability. An effective international monitoring system enables all parties involved to have greater confidence in each other’s peaceful intentions, fostering an environment where dialogue and cooperation can thrive.

Third, a negotiated framework that addresses concerns about nuclear capabilities can help avoid an arms buildup across the region. Neighboring countries, aware of each other’s security concerns, may feel reassured by a balanced approach that prioritizes peaceful development and regional stability over rivalry.

Furthermore, negotiating a peaceful agreement is, from the perspective of a state seeking to protect its interests, a safer and less costly alternative to direct confrontation or extreme sanctions that also impact civilian populations. War or prolonged conflict would entail economic and political costs for the United States, in addition to global instability.

Finally, an agreement could help maintain a stable regional balance, fostering security and cooperation in West Asia. A more stable context benefits all actors involved, including the U.S., which holds strategic and economic interests in the region.