President Donald Trump announced the United States had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities in a Saturday night address flanked by two leading Make America Great Again successors, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in addition to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The television stage craft from a former reality TV star and producer was a small act of political defiance after criticism from some in Trump’s MAGA base who were concerned about the prospect of another forever war, doubling down on his decision to strike Iran and, in the words of a former Republican operative, handcuffing Vance and Rubio to his course of action should they choose to pursue presidential aspirations of their own.
WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE THREE IRAN NUCLEAR SITES TARGETED IN US STRIKES
The White House has dismissed comparisons between Saturday’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan using bunker bombs in combat for the first time and the Iraq war, particularly because of claims before the latter about the existence of weapons of mass destruction as the whereabouts of Tehran’s enriched uranium remains unknown.
Regardless, Claremont McKenna College politics professor John Pitney, a former Republican operative, drew parallels between those two moments in history before the 2028 GOP primary, despite Trump’s declaration of a fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel on Monday night.
“In the spring of 2003, the Iraq War seemed to be a political asset to the GOP,” Pitney told the Washington Examiner. “But as the months ticked by, the insurgency grew, and the weapons of mass destruction proved nonexistent. The war turned out to be a liability both for the Republican Party and for Democrats who supported it, especially [former Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton.”
Of Saturday’s strikes and Trump’s address, the professor added: “If the attacks really did wipe out Iran’s nuclear weapon program and if the conflict does not grow, then it might help the political fortunes of Rubio and Vance. If things go badly, their association with the attacks will hurt them badly… With that [image of the four men during the president’s remarks], Trump handcuffed their reputations to his.”
Before Trump struck Iran, he had been criticized by lawmakers, including libertarian Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and MAGA powerhouse Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-GA), as well as MAGA media diehards such as Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, Alex Jones, and Jack Posobiec, for even considering taking such provocative military action against Tehran after campaigning three times on ending forever wars, specifically conflicts in the Middle East.
However, Ronald Reagan biographer Craig Shirley, among others, downplayed that criticism, contending Trump’s MAGA base was not against the president’s strikes but against “nation building.”
“That smacks of empire, and MAGA is opposed to that,” Shirley told the Washington Examiner. “MAGA supports freedom, security, and yes, success. Going in on the ground would be dirty, and long, and other than [neoconservatives] like [former Ambassador to the United Nations] John Bolton, who wants that?”
Republican strategist Cesar Conda, a former chief of staff to Rubio when he was in the Senate, cited a poll from GOP firm Trafalgar Group that was fielded before Saturday’s strikes but found 74% of respondents supported Trump’s position that “Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon by any means necessary.”
“Aside from Tucker Carlson and members of Congress, such as Tom Massie and MTG, the Trump voter base is fully behind Trump,” Conda told the Washington Examiner. “The country is rallying behind the president, and having Rubio, Vance, and Hegseth standing behind him was a strong show of unity and, more importantly, competence.”
Shirley, the historian, reiterated that the Republican Party “is not tied to Iran,” arguing Saturday’s strikes were a “one-off event” and “we are not in for the long haul like [Iraq] under [former President George W.] Bush.”
“Helping Americans helps all those candidates,” he said. “Peace, freedom, and security are always good things to run on… MAGA is the dominant philosophy of GOP, and Trump is the leader of MAGA, so [Vance and Rubio] would be well advised to stay close philosophically to Trump.”
Trump declining to respond to Iran’s retaliatory attacks against U.S. military assets in Qatar and Iraq — including the Al Udeid Air Base in Doha, the largest U.S. base in the Middle East and home to U.S. Central Command — on Monday supports Shirley’s argument that Saturday’s strikes were a “one-off,” as is the ceasefire, at least for now.
Alex Bruesewitz, an adviser to Trump’s outside political operation, underscored how Trump had de-escalated with Iran and Israel after 12 days of war with the help of Vance and Rubio, though both Iran and Israel exchanged strikes before the ceasefire took effect to the president’s frustration.
“The president is very focused on what’s best for our current national security,” Bruesewitz told the Washington Examiner. “It’s the year 2025; nobody’s focused on 2028, unlike some of the people who are either on the bench or outside of the game right now who have time to pontificate about 2028.”
The Trump ally continued, “Marco Rubio and JD Vance are working diligently in the interests of the American people, not in their own self-serving interests… Our team, though, is very focused on the American people, instead of themselves.”
A source close to the Trump administration went on to underline how the president declining to counterretaliate against Iran and his ceasefire make it “clear we’re not moving into a forever war now and there is no political threat to these strikes so long as [they] didn’t turn into a forever war with American troops on the ground.”
“JD has made it clear that he will always have the president’s back, and the MAGA faithful will remember that,” the source told the Washington Examiner.
Vance, in a post-Iran retaliation attacks and ceasefire announcement interview, told Fox News on Monday that Trump was concentrating on ensuring Tehran does not restart its nuclear program and negotiating “a long-term settlement here to where we can have peace in the region, where our regional allies and, of course, the American people, most importantly, can be secured.”
“Our goal was to bury the uranium, and I do think the uranium is buried,” he said. “If they have 60% enriched uranium, but they don’t have the ability to enrich it to 90%, and, further, they don’t have the ability to convert that to a nuclear weapon, that is mission success. That is the obliteration of their nuclear program, which is why the president, I think, rightly is using that term.”
Trump’s Saturday address with Vance, Rubio, and Hegseth was notable because it was different from his prime-time remarks after the death of former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in 2020, which he delivered alone.
After Saturday’s address, the possible MAGA successors, as Bush officials did before the Iraq War in 2003, former President Barack Obama aides did after the Benghazi attack in Libya in 2012, and even former President Joe Biden aides did after the fall of the Afghanistan government in 2021, publicly defended their president and administration. Vance and Rubio did so on Sunday morning TV news shows, while Hegseth held a press conference at the Pentagon alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine.
The men, should they run for president themselves, though Vance and Rubio have equivocated so far about their intentions, could become part of a political tradition in which members of administrations have to stand by their respective commander in chief as their record becomes their own. Recent examples include Clinton, not only over her vote authorizing the Iraq war when she was a senator, but also over her congressional testimony about her response to the Benghazi attack when she was Obama’s secretary of state. Another instance is former Vice President Kamala Harris, who was under pressure last year to remain in step with Biden despite his missteps in Afghanistan.
“We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program,” Vance told NBC News on Sunday. “We don’t want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it’s already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program, and then we want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here.”
For his part in Saturday’s strikes, including telephoning Trump for his final approval, Hegseth has become a presidential contender after problems during his confirmation process and during his tenure at the Defense Department, such as his alleged alcohol problems, use of the messaging application Signal, and complaints of mismanagement. Trump critic Meghan McCain now counts herself among Hegseth’s supporters.
“The three men standing behind Trump are all the top 3 contenders to be President next,” McCain posted on X after Saturday’s address.
MEGHAN MCCAIN PREDICTS HEGSETH, VANCE, AND RUBIO TOP 2028 PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDERS
Trump, en route to the Netherlands for this year’s North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit, expressed his frustration with Iran and Israel for striking each other on Monday, notwithstanding the ceasefire.
“[Iran] violated it. But Israel violated it, too,” he told reporters at the White House. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f*** they’re doing. Do you understand that?”
