Vance says U.S. 'not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear program'
WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance said Sunday that the U.S. is not at war with Iran, but with Tehran's nuclear weapons program, and declined to confirm with 100% confidence that the country's nuclear sites had been completely destroyed.
During an interview on NBC News' 'Meet the Press,' moderator Kristen Welker asked the vice president whether the U.S. was now at war with Iran after President Donald Trump said the U.S. military had dropped bombs on three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday.
The move marked the first time that the U.S. had directly attacked Iran and prompted concerns about whether attacks could drag the U.S. into a wider war. Hours later, Iran launched retaliatory strikes against Israel, causing damage in Tel Aviv.
Follow along for live coverage
'We're not at war with Iran,' Vance said. 'We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.'
Vance also declined to confirm with 100% certainty that Iran's nuclear sites were completely destroyed, saying instead that he believes the U.S. has 'substantially delayed' Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon.
"Do you have 100% confidence that Iran's nuclear sites were totally destroyed?" Welker asked.
'I'm not going to get into sensitive intelligence about what we've seen on the ground there in Iran, but we've seen a lot, and I feel very confident that we've substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon, and that was the goal of this attack," Vance said.
He separately said during the interview that the U.S. 'destroyed the Iranian nuclear program,' adding, 'I think we set that program back substantially.'
When pressed in a separate interview on ABC News' "This Week" over whether the Fordo facility was damaged or destroyed, Vance declined to draw a distinction.
"Severely damaged versus obliterated — I'm not exactly sure what the difference is," Vance said. "What we know is we set their nuclear program back substantially."
Trump had said Saturday night that the facilities were 'completely and totally obliterated,' but an Iranian parliament member said on Sunday that Fordo was not seriously damaged in the strike. NBC News cannot independently verify either claim.
'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,' Trump said in his Saturday-night address to the nation. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace.'
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said during a Sunday morning press briefing that 'Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.' During the same briefing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine said that "final battle damage will take some time."
"But initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Caine added.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has also said that Iran 'reserves all options' for its response. Trump said in an all-capitalized post to Truth Social on Saturday that 'any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.'
In the hours since the strike, the U.S. has received 'some indirect messages from the Iranians,' Vance said.
Asked whether the U.S. would draw a red line if Iran disrupted shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a major route, Vance said the move would be 'suicidal' for Iran.
'Their entire economy runs through the Strait of Hormuz. If they want to destroy their own economy and cause disruptions in the world, I think that would be their decision,' he said. 'But why would they do that? I don't think it makes any sense.'
The vice president said that the U.S. wants peace with Iran 'in the context of them not having a nuclear weapons program.' He argued that the U.S. did not 'blow up' diplomacy, casting blame instead on Iran for not giving diplomacy 'a real chance.'
'The Iranians are clearly not very good at war. Perhaps they should follow President Trump's lead and give peace a chance,' Vance said. 'If they're serious about it, I guarantee you the President of the United States is too.'
The U.S. attack came after Israel launched strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities earlier this month, prompting Iran to retaliate with strikes against Israel. The two countries have been locked in a military conflict since then.
The U.S. initially denied its involvement, but in the days following the initial attacks, the president weighed whether the U.S. should unleash the military to back Israel. U.S. has 'bunker buster' bombs that could penetrate Fordo, which is built inside a mountain — the only country known to have this type of weapon.
Support for the president's decision largely fell along party lines. Some Democratic lawmakers — as well as at least two GOP lawmakers — argued that it was unconstitutional for the president to decide to conduct military strikes without Congressional approval, pointing to the Constitution's delegation of power and the War Powers Act. A handful of Democrats argued that Trump's actions were grounds for impeachment.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., brushed off concerns, saying during an interview on "Meet the Press" that Trump was acting within his authority.
"Congress can declare war or cut off funding. We can't be the commander-in-chief. You can't have 535 commander-in-chiefs," Graham said, referring to the number of representatives and senators.
Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said that the president can act militarily "when there's a clear and imminent threat to U.S. citizens, to the United States, to the homeland."
"That wasn't the case here," Kelly said.
In the days leading up to the strikes, Trump's MAGA movement allies split over whether the U.S. should get involved militarily against Iran. The disagreement spilled into the open, with the sides criticizing each other on social media.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
15 minutes ago
- CNBC
Don't think the U.S. or Israel need to pursue a regime change in Iran, says Dan Senor
Dan Senor, former foreign policy advisor in the Bush administration and 'Call Me Back' podcast host, joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the latest developments in the Israel-Iran conflict following Washington's surprise attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, what to expect from Iran in retaliation, future of Iran's nuclear program, likelihood of a regime change in Iran, and more.
New York Times
17 minutes ago
- New York Times
Claims of Potential Rights Violations Further Strain E.U.-Israeli Ties
Relations between Israel and the European Union have become even more fraught after the bloc found that Israel's actions in Gaza, including the blockade of aid to the enclave, may have violated human rights obligations. A review by the European Union's diplomatic service investigated whether Israel had violated a provision in a treaty that came into force in 2000 and underpins relations between the two sides. Critics of Israel have called for the bloc to suspend the treaty, accusing the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of violating the rights of Palestinians en masse. Israel has rejected the accusations. The review referred to a number of issues that could have constituted a breach of Israel's obligations. Those included Israeli restrictions of essential goods and food into Gaza, attacks that the report said had caused a 'significant number of casualties,' and military strikes on hospitals and medical facilities. Under the terms of the treaty, the European Union and Israel agreed that their relationship 'would be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles.' European Union member states are sharply divided on Israel, meaning that a major shift in policy may be hard to pass. But the report's conclusions underscored growing frustrations, including among some of Israel's closest allies, over the handling of the war in Gaza. Kaja Kallas, the European Union's foreign policy chief, was expected to present the findings of the review to a meeting of the bloc's foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday. The conclusions from the review were circulated among member states on Friday. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
20 minutes ago
- New York Times
The China Wild Card
Andrew here. After President Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, there are a cascade of questions on Monday morning. The most pressing that has so far gone largely overlooked is this: What about China, one of Iran's biggest economic partners? Would Beijing quietly support efforts by Tehran to retaliate against American interests? Will it continue to prop up Iran's economy by buying the country's oil? If it stands by Iran, how could that impact the U.S. trade negotiations with China? And, perhaps most critically, what does this mean for President Xi Jinping's calculations about Taiwan, and how Trump might react to an effort to take the island? I spent the weekend talking and texting with policymakers and analysts in Washington to understand what may come next. Perhaps the most intriguing perspective I gleaned was that the U.S. action might actually grant China greater leverage in its broader negotiations with Trump — not less — over trade and nearly everything else. 'The U.S.'s call for China to counsel Iran to not close the Strait of Hormuz adds to the list of things Washington needs from Beijing, the others being its rare earth exports, cracking down on the fentanyl trade, and reducing its trade surplus,' Scott Kennedy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told me. 'As a result, China's potential leverage grows and the costs to the U.S. from escalating in any domain against China grows.' Many in Washington say that China would prefer to de-escalate the situation as quickly as possible. Bonnie Glaser, who runs the Indo-Pacific program at the German Marshall Fund explained: 'Chinese interests are in a cease-fire, not a wider war. I don't think the Chinese will support Iranian strikes on the U.S.' Indeed, the truth is that 'China is much more important to Iran than vice versa,' Ryan Hass, a senior fellow and director at the Thornton China Center at the Brookings Institution, told me. Consider: About 90 percent of Iran's oil exports go to China, Hass said — but that represents just 10 percent of China's oil imports. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
