Trump chose decisive action after diplomacy failed: JD Vance
Advertisement
Washington, March 3 : After months of diplomacy, US President Donald Trump concluded that only decisive action would prevent Iran from reaching the brink of a nuclear weapon, Vice President J.D. Vance has said.
Vance, in an interview with Fox News on Monday (local time), said the President believed time was running out despite prolonged engagement with Tehran. Referring to Operation Midnight Hammer, he said, "We did destroy the nuclear enrichment facilities during Operation Midnight Hammer over the summer."
But the Vice President stressed that the administration's objective extended beyond temporary setbacks. "He didn't want to just keep the country safe from an Iranian nuclear weapon for the first three, four years of his second term; he wanted to make sure that Iran could never have a nuclear weapon," Vance said.
According to him, Trump assessed that Iran remained intent on advancing its programme. "He saw that the Iranian regime was weakened. He knew that they were committed to getting on the brink of a nuclear weapon, and he decided to take action," Vance said.
Pressed on remarks by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the US could escalate further, Vance underscored the US military's capability. "We have much greater capacity to inflict damage on the Iranian nuclear program, but also on various missiles that threaten our troops," he said, adding that the President "has a lot of optionality here."
He maintained that the administration's objective was narrowly defined and clearly communicated. "There's just no way that Donald Trump is going to allow this country to get into a multi-year conflict with no clear end in sight and no clear objective," Vance said. "He's defined that objective as Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and has to commit long-term to never trying to rebuild the nuclear capability."
Drawing comparisons with earlier US wars, Vance cited "Afghanistan, 20 years of mission creep, 20 years of not having a clear objective," and said Iraq also lacked clarity. He argued that the present strategy differed because the goal was specific and limited.
On whether Washington seeks regime change in Tehran, Vance said that while a friendlier government would be welcome, it was secondary. "Whatever happens with the regime in one form or another, it's incidental to the President's primary objective here, which is to make sure the Iranian terrorist regime does not build a nuclear bomb," he said.
Vance also questioned Iran's claim that its enrichment was for peaceful purposes. "Why are you building your enrichment facilities 70 feet underground, and why are you enriching to a level that's way beyond civilian enrichment?" he said. "The objection is these enrichment facilities that are only useful for building a nuclear weapon."
Iran's nuclear activities have long been a source of friction with the United States and its allies.
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action sought to curb Iran's enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. The United States withdrew from the accord during Trump's first term, after which tensions rose, and Iran gradually expanded aspects of its nuclear programme, bringing the issue back to the centre of US foreign policy.
Vance, in an interview with Fox News on Monday (local time), said the President believed time was running out despite prolonged engagement with Tehran. Referring to Operation Midnight Hammer, he said, "We did destroy the nuclear enrichment facilities during Operation Midnight Hammer over the summer."
But the Vice President stressed that the administration's objective extended beyond temporary setbacks. "He didn't want to just keep the country safe from an Iranian nuclear weapon for the first three, four years of his second term; he wanted to make sure that Iran could never have a nuclear weapon," Vance said.
According to him, Trump assessed that Iran remained intent on advancing its programme. "He saw that the Iranian regime was weakened. He knew that they were committed to getting on the brink of a nuclear weapon, and he decided to take action," Vance said.
Pressed on remarks by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the US could escalate further, Vance underscored the US military's capability. "We have much greater capacity to inflict damage on the Iranian nuclear program, but also on various missiles that threaten our troops," he said, adding that the President "has a lot of optionality here."
He maintained that the administration's objective was narrowly defined and clearly communicated. "There's just no way that Donald Trump is going to allow this country to get into a multi-year conflict with no clear end in sight and no clear objective," Vance said. "He's defined that objective as Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and has to commit long-term to never trying to rebuild the nuclear capability."
Drawing comparisons with earlier US wars, Vance cited "Afghanistan, 20 years of mission creep, 20 years of not having a clear objective," and said Iraq also lacked clarity. He argued that the present strategy differed because the goal was specific and limited.
On whether Washington seeks regime change in Tehran, Vance said that while a friendlier government would be welcome, it was secondary. "Whatever happens with the regime in one form or another, it's incidental to the President's primary objective here, which is to make sure the Iranian terrorist regime does not build a nuclear bomb," he said.
Vance also questioned Iran's claim that its enrichment was for peaceful purposes. "Why are you building your enrichment facilities 70 feet underground, and why are you enriching to a level that's way beyond civilian enrichment?" he said. "The objection is these enrichment facilities that are only useful for building a nuclear weapon."
Iran's nuclear activities have long been a source of friction with the United States and its allies.
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action sought to curb Iran's enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. The United States withdrew from the accord during Trump's first term, after which tensions rose, and Iran gradually expanded aspects of its nuclear programme, bringing the issue back to the centre of US foreign policy.
Advertisement