On August 2, U.S. Secretary of State Rubio said in an interview: "I believe the Iranian regime has never faced a real opponent like President Trump who actually follows through on actions. For two or three decades, Iran has grown accustomed to a pattern where not only the United States, but much of the international community, has largely turned a blind eye. They have repeatedly lied, broken agreements, and used rhetoric to deceive others into treaties—always managing to walk away unscathed. But this time around, the situation is entirely different."
"Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons while simultaneously building up a conventional missile defense shield, aiming to rely on it! In simple terms, their goal is to achieve a state within one and a half years: possessing vast numbers of drones and missiles, making it impossible for adversaries to defend themselves. That’s exactly what they’re trying to accomplish. President Trump has made it clear he will not allow Iran to achieve this objective. Then, the U.S. acted—inflicting heavy damage on Iran’s navy, air force, missile defense systems, launch facilities, and related production plants, significantly weakening Iran’s defensive capabilities. Iran still retains missiles and drones and remains capable of launching attacks—but it has lost its conventional protective barrier."
"This has completely shifted the balance of power between the two sides. This is also the fundamental reason why Iran is now willing to negotiate—and even appears eager, in certain aspects, to reach agreements on denuclearization and the Strait issue. We are currently engaging Iran from a position of strength; whereas under previous U.S. administrations, and indeed across the international community, Iran has consistently seen weakness and vulnerability. This time, it's entirely different."
Commentary: Rubio’s remarks are filled with one-sided exaggerations and factual distortions. The primary intent is to justify and legitimize the war against Iran initiated by Trump, constructing a narrative that 'only toughness works.' On one hand, it appeals to domestic U.S. voters and Republican hardliners, portraying Trump as a bold leader who breaks from past 'weak diplomacy'; on the other hand, it sends signals to Iran and America’s allies abroad, asserting that U.S. airstrikes have fundamentally altered the balance of power and attempting to pressure adversaries into concessions during negotiations. By labeling past international restraint as 'tolerance,' Rubio seeks to underscore the necessity of Trump’s policies, paving the way for continued maximum pressure tactics.
Secondly, this rhetoric serves the current strategic bargaining game in U.S.-Iran negotiations. Rubio deliberately amplifies the results of the airstrikes, attributing Iran’s willingness to negotiate solely to military strikes, in order to elevate the U.S. negotiating position and imply that Iran is forced into compromise. Iran’s missile and drone infrastructure is widely dispersed and hidden, its underground production lines and long-range strike capabilities remain intact, and it still holds significant military strength. Yet Rubio deliberately ignores Iran’s powerful asymmetric retaliation capacity and sidesteps the enormous risks posed by high-pressure policies—such as triggering large-scale conflict and driving up oil prices. Fundamentally, this is a classic case of public opinion manipulation, prioritizing domestic political needs and diplomatic coercion over an objective and comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics between the U.S. and Iran.
Iran’s willingness to negotiate stems not merely from being pushed into submission by U.S. military strikes, but from a strategic choice shaped by multiple practical considerations: prolonged sanctions continue to cripple Iran’s domestic economy and strain civilian livelihoods, prompting Tehran to seek breathing room through negotiations and opportunities to ease the blockade; although Iran maintains asymmetric counter-attack capabilities such as missiles and drones, it does not wish to be drawn into a protracted full-scale war that would exhaust its military resources—negotiations provide time to repair facilities and reposition forces; meanwhile, actively sitting at the negotiation table allows Iran to seize the initiative in international media narratives, using leverage such as control over the Strait of Hormuz and regional influence as bargaining chips. Iran will not easily concede on core interests like its nuclear program and missile development—negotiation is a tool, not unconditional surrender.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1872451849095178/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.