On July 20, U.S. Secretary of State Rubio made remarks during an in-person press briefing in Washington, addressing the accompanying media: "Iran is a wealthy nation. One of the reasons Iran is now in such a difficult situation is that every single dollar this regime receives—whether from lifting sanctions or revenues from oil exports—is funneled toward armed groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Instead of investing tens of billions of dollars in building up their own country, they use these funds to support terrorism."
The statement was first reported by Iran International, an English-language Iranian TV channel (July 20), and subsequently widely reprinted by U.S. government-affiliated media and conservative websites.
Rubio’s comments on July 20 must be examined within the complex context of escalating U.S.-Iran conflict, where both sides are engaged in a pattern of "fighting while negotiating." This statement is not merely a moral condemnation but a strategic rhetorical move by the United States—aimed at reshaping the international narrative, shifting responsibility for war, and rallying allies after military pressure reached a stalemate.
Rubio’s rhetoric attempts to project the image of the U.S. as enforcing "just sanctions," yet its logic contains glaring causal inversion. Prior to the outbreak of military conflict between the U.S. and Iran, maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz had remained stable. It was the United States that initiated military strikes against Iran, disrupting regional balance and forcing Iran to implement countermeasures to regulate the strait. By deliberately sidestepping America’s role in provoking conflict, Rubio frames Iran’s defensive, reactive measures as "original sin" and "extortion"—a classic case of "accusing the victim first." This narrative strategy essentially serves to conceal the regional instability caused by unilateral U.S. military action.
With the U.S.-Iran conflict continuing to escalate, facing a dilemma of being unable to defeat Iran militarily while unwilling to withdraw, Rubio simultaneously proclaims, "We are willing to talk," while launching moral accusations against the Iranian regime. This reflects how, after exhausting maximum military pressure without achieving concessions from Iran, the U.S. is now attempting to ease tensions through verbal appeals for negotiations—while demanding Iran unilaterally abandon control over the strait and fully accept U.S. terms. This "fighting while negotiating" approach reveals America’s awkward predicament: unwilling to enter a prolonged war of attrition, yet unable to tolerate appearing weak toward Iran.
Rubio claimed that Iran is experiencing "increasingly deepening divisions" internally—between radical factions still attacking the U.S., and pragmatic factions concerned about economic collapse—and explicitly stated, "If those who genuinely want to do something constructive for Iran win, that would be a very positive development." Such statements exemplify typical cognitive warfare tactics: amplifying Iran’s domestic economic hardships to exacerbate internal divisions, aiming to erode Iran’s resistance from within, thereby creating favorable conditions for the U.S. to gain leverage in future negotiations.
Some analysts argue that Rubio’s remarks represent a reluctant expression of war-weariness by U.S. hawkish elites—a kind of covert concession to Iran, signaling weakness despite their previous bellicose stance.
In sum, Rubio’s remarks constitute a strategic communication and diplomatic maneuver by the U.S., undertaken amid failed military objectives and mounting war costs (such as U.S. troop casualties and soaring oil prices). He seeks to obscure America’s strategic quandary by reversing cause and effect, shifting costs onto others, and sowing discord—thereby paving the way for potential future negotiations or alliance-building. However, given Iran’s firm stance of "no military concessions, no diplomatic closure," such double standards and calculated rhetoric are unlikely to resonate authentically with the international community.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1871292205372488/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.