LIVE: Rubio Speaks to Reporters in Paris

We had a very good G7 meeting, obviously hosted by some partners as well that came from Saudi Arabia and Brazil and Egypt, South Korea. We talked about a couple of things today just to bring you up to speed. First of all, in the situation in the Middle East, in particular the Straits of Hormuz, I informed our partners, as we've been discussing with you and others, that at this point the economic campaign and the pressure and the devastation... That our economic campaign is having on the Iranian regime is working so well that the president really doesn't have any need to conduct major combat operations. Now, obviously, if Iran crosses certain red lines, if their regime does certain things that should not happen, and I'm not going to speculate what those are, but you know what they are, obviously the U.S. military, the most capable military in the world, stands ready to address it. But as of now, there's really no need for major combat operations any longer because Because the blockade and the economic sanctions are... doing devastation to their economy and it's sad you know the Iranian people deserve better than to be a third world country which is where their leadership is taking them but that's what their leaders have brought upon them. In addition, I reported back to them and just got an update just a few moments ago. It looks like the talks in Abu Dhabi were very productive. I think the most important thing, obviously there's a lot of work to be done in that regard. It's not like something that's on the verge of being solved in the next 24 hours or anything like that. But what's really important is that the Europeans are at the table. They'll be discussing with our people. They've been working very closely with Jared and Steve who were there on every step along the way. And it's actually our goal at some point to expand this trilateral so it's not just the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia, but also that the Europeans be represented at that table directly with these talks. So hopefully there'll be – I think they put out a joint statement today with the European partners that are there alongside our team. And obviously in the days to come, perhaps we can make some progress on including them in that front. So that was the main focus today of the talks was about the Middle East and about Ukraine. And I thought it was a good meeting, and we'll see many of them in December. Mr. Secretary, your counterpart at the Department of War, Pete Hegseth, just defended himself against the articles of impeachment. I wonder if you can confidently say that Secretary Hegseth's actions and orders on the Iran war, on drug boat strikes, on the capture of Maduro, on actions against Yemen have been entirely lawful. Yeah, the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. And he has a right to defend this country and to address imminent threats that pose a threat to the United States, and he's done so. I don't know how anyone could argue that drug dealers trying to import poison into our country is not an imminent threat. It's a real and imminent threat, and it's been addressed. We've discussed Iran extensively and the threat they pose to the United States, not in the last year, since 1979, a threat that's grown. In the case of Nicolas Maduro, that was, in many cases, a law enforcement operation because he was a fugitive of American justice who was captured and brought to justice. And by the way, the ancillary impact of also opening and paving the path for Venezuela to have a better future. So as I said, on all those things, not only did Pete execute on a direct order from the commander-in-chief, our constitution is empowered and trusted. With the job of keeping Americans safe, but they did it quite effectively on all those fronts. Mr. Secretary, on that round, you said that there's no need for any major military campaign right now because the blockade is working. Not just the blockade, the sanctions. Yeah, they're truly devastating. So where does that leave us? Status quo? No, not status quo. The economic pressure is going to get even worse. I mean, understand that these sanctions begin to compound. So, for example, Iran still has a small number of just a handful of barrels of oil left on the water that got past the blockade when there was the MOU and that brief ceasefire period. Once that dries up, almost all of their oil revenue will dry up. There's other sanctions evasion tools that they're choosing. Like, there's other things that Iran is trying to do to get around the sanctions. But Scott Besson and the Treasury Department, working alongside our intelligence agencies and others, keep closing those off. So the economic pain that is being inflicted on Iran right now and on that regime is extraordinary, and it compounds. It's growing every day. Like, these sanctions, they get worse over time. They get more painful as time goes on. And it's all brought about by the fact that this radical regime of lunatics is imposing this on their own people. They're destroying their own country in how they're doing it. And it's been so effective. You know, the president has taken the time. He's consulted with regional leaders. He's heard input from people throughout the Middle East and around the world. And based on the input he's getting from all of our partners in the region and beyond, It's clear that at this time there's no need for major combat operations because the economic campaign that's being waged by the Department of Treasury alongside others is devastating. It's going very well. There's no need to disrupt that at this point. Does that leave room for negotiations? I mean, do you think with this economic devastation Iran is ready to... Come back to the negotiating table. Oh, I think Iran would love a deal. The problem is the conditions they continue to place are absurd. Like, they're not even serious right now. But that could change, certainly. I mean, the pain that they're feeling is that eventually you have to eat. Eventually you have to be able to pay your own fighters and your own security forces and so forth. Eventually the economic realities penetrate the skull of even the most radical lunatic. So I think as time goes on, I mean, that will have an impact. But, yeah, the U.S. always stands ready. If there's a real deal to be done, we're open. And there's countries out there that are engaged. The Qataris were in Washington yesterday. The prime minister met with the president. We've had discussions with them ongoing. And they and other countries continue to try to act as mediators, trying to float ideas back and forth. We're not discouraging them from doing it. You know, if there's a deal to be done, if the president will be the first one to be in favor of it, it's not going to be a stupid deal. It's not going to be a bad deal. Otherwise, you know, they'll just continue to impoverish themselves. Secretary, how would you describe the differences at the moment between the point of view for the U.S. and its European partners regarding the war in Ukraine? The differences in the point of view as to the... I don't think there's a difference. I mean, I think we have the same interest in mind. Our goals are the same. We want the war to end, and we want there never to be a war again. So that requires not just ending the war, but also ensuring that Ukraine never again feels threatened for its security. We all share the same goal. And then the question is, how do you construct that? How do you come up with something that achieves both of those goals? And they're interrelated. So I think we share the same goal. And I think the one thing I would point to is that... And I heard from my colleagues that there's always this concern in Europe that they're going to be left out, that America's going to cut some deal with Russia and leave Europe out of the equation. Well, Europe's at the table. They're with us. They're right alongside us. They've got representatives there of five countries in the EU that are in Abu Dhabi as we speak. And as our negotiators have made clear, we think the trilateral should eventually include our European partners at the table as well, because they are a part of solving this problem for the long term. Mr. Rubio, it sounds a bit like you're making an argument in the Middle East for the status quo. And, I mean, you mentioned your Gulf allies, but what I've heard repeatedly from them is one of the worst scenarios is the status quo, because they want a diplomatic solution. And it's devastating for them economically to have the insecurity. ...of the current situation. So what would you say to them? Oh, it's not the status quo, because the economic pain we're imposing on Iran will get worse, not better. In essence, it's going to continue to increment. So it's not going to be... it's going to be worse for Iran in a month, and in two months, and in three months than it is now. But do you foresee that then forcing Iran to effectively capitulate, to come to the table on the terms... Yeah, I mean, right now, I mean, look, we're not going to pay... Iran, you know, is demanding reparations. They should be the ones paying reparations, because they're the ones that have, you know, destabilized the region for long periods of time. They're demanding pallets of cash, which the president's made clear is not going to happen. If they want a nuclear energy program, they should have one like many other countries around the world have. So there's things they can do, but just right now they just don't seem, you know, at that point. Now, I think they want a deal. There's no doubt they'd like a deal, too, but they're just not ready to make one, apparently. But we're open to a little bit of changes, but I don't think status quo is the right way to phrase this. Status quo means that things are going to stay static. They're not. They're going to continue to grow. What I'm saying to you is that the economic campaign is so devastating. That right now, there really is no need for major combat operations. The president has basically said that over the last few days, and that's what I told our allies here today. But there's no need for further... Your Gulf allies are saying their economy is devastated by this ongoing situation. So what would you say to them? Well, I don't know. We haven't heard that their economies are devastated. Their oil is getting out. And, in fact, we encourage other countries to join us in the effort to protect shipping. In the end, the Iranians are still launching... You know, a couple of drones a night trying to sink commercial vessels. But oil is getting out on some nights. It's 80, 85 percent of what was getting out pre-conflict. And the reason why it's not 100 percent is because the Iranian oil is not getting out. The only oil that's not getting out consistently through the Straits of Hormuz is Iranian oil. Now, it'd be better if they weren't having a handful of drones fired at them every other day. But we'll continue to defend. And we've actually encouraged our partners to join us in the effort of defending global shipping. We shouldn't have to defend global shipping. But in this particular case. Because the IRGC is intent upon trying to sink these ships. We'll continue to do that. We've been doing it quite effectively. Secretary, given the history of Iran lashing out at its neighbors, that the economic sanctions and the blockade having a real bite on their economy will cause them again to lash out against civilian infrastructure. I mean, if they do that, then they'll pay a terrible price. I mean, if Iran decides to escalate and they decide to initiate military action, I don't need to tell you what will happen as a result of it. All I'm saying to you is that right now the economic pressure on Iran is so devastating and is working so well that the president has concluded that for the time being there's no need for major combat operations because we're achieving the same objective through economic means while we defend shipping and we impose the blockade, which is like a historic blockade. No one's ever seen anything like it. Secretary, how about you? Do the Israelis agree with that? I mean, I don't know what their viewpoint is on it in this regard, obviously. And I'm not going to speak for the Israeli government. I'm telling you what the American position is. How about from the G7? Did you get any kind of a response? On what? From the G7, when you raised this. Presumably the French and the Germans and the Italians, the idea of helping on the street. No, I raised it. I didn't get a response, no. Okay, so they're still stuck in the... Well, I think part of the challenge, yeah, look, I mean, part of the challenge we have is there's countries out there that say, well, we'll... Ready to provide forces to help defend shipping once there's no risk of conflict. But if there was risk of conflict, we wouldn't need them. So it's kind of a catch-22. Look, we're going to continue to do it. We've done it quite effectively. We think it's in their interest. Frankly, we think it's in the interest of the world to protect shipping because the U.S. doesn't get any oil from there. We don't rely on Middle East energy for our own economy. So I think these countries should step up. I think a couple are thinking about it, to be honest with you. But you didn't get any hints. Well, I don't think the foreign ministers are in a position to make those commitments, to be honest. Those probably would have to be made by the heads of the government. Do you see any signs from the Russian negotiators in Abu Dhabi thus far that they are serious about bringing an end, the commitment to bringing an end to the war? Well, that's what we're testing, obviously. It's good that they're there. That's what we're testing. I'm just informing. I'm not there in Abu Dhabi, so I can't speak to their body language or their attitude towards it. All I can say is they showed up. They're there. They agreed to the trilateral. And I'm reporting to you that, you know, our European allies who are so involved in this and care a lot about it were there as well. They're not at the table yet, but we think they should be. And I think this trilateral eventually will be expanded to include them in order to arrive at a final agreement here. Sorry, just back to Iran. Why is a stalemate on the Iran war beneficial to the United States? It's not a stalemate. You call it a stalemate. I know it's not a stalemate. How is it a stalemate? The United States is imposing extraordinary damaging... effects through our sanctions and other measures and the blockade on the Iranian economy that every month continues to collapse. What is their inflation rate? Is it three or four hundred percent now? I don't know how that's a stalemate. They're bleeding. They're bleeding economically. No diplomacy on the horizon. But we're open to diplomacy. You're asking me what's happening today, and I'm telling you that the Iranian demands are totally unrealistic. We expect that could change, and if it does, we'll be prepared for diplomacy. And all I'm saying, and on the economic front, is we don't need to conduct military strikes if we're achieving the same objectives through economic means and economic pressure. But that's not a stalemate. That's actually the contrary of a stalemate. It is an increased pressure on Iran that continues to grow every day. If you put a sanction on them today, It hurts, but it hurts more and more as every day goes by because they're losing money every day, and that begins to compound. So that's not a stalemate. On the contrary, that's growing pressure on them that this economic pressure is putting on them. How does that further demean their nuclear program? Well, they need money for a nuclear program. They need money in order to fund terrorism. For everything they do around the world, be it their support of Hamas, Hezbollah, the militia militias, their efforts to kill people all over the world, their cyber activities, their nuclear program, all these things cost money. The less money they have available to them, The less money they can use to fund all their malign and nefarious activity. How unified is the administration on this position? Who? How unified is the administration on this position? We know the Vice President is spearheading. No, but the President of the United States makes these decisions. I mean, ultimately, our job is to execute on the President's orders. Now, the President takes a lot of input from people in his administration. He takes input and ideas from our partners and our allies around the world. To outside experts, to the people he talks to. But in the end, the decision is the president. And once the president chooses a direction, it's our job in this administration to execute on the president's direction. The Iranians have continued to attack shipping going through the strait. Is there a threshold beyond which attacks would lead to a military attack? I'm not going to speculate on any thresholds. The president talked about last night, our military is capable and ready at any moment if necessary to conduct devastating attacks. But we don't see the need for it now because the truth of the matter is that the economic pressure we've put on them It's incredibly effective, incredibly devastating, and we have reason to believe that it's having a true impact on them internally, and that'll play itself out in the weeks and months to come. How about China? The big gap here is the Chinese purchases of Iranian oil. Well, there won't be much oil to purchase. I mean, the only oil they can purchase is the oil that's out on the water, and there's not much of it left. Let me ask you another China-related question, if I may. Can you talk about the state of discussions with the Chinese on AI guardrails? Have there been serious talks since the last presidential-level meeting? Do you expect them to continue after the next summit? Well, I think there's been conversation. Thank you. It should be an issue that we raise at the summit. I'm sure it'll be an issue among all the leaders that are at APEC, not just the U.S. and the Chinese on a bilateral basis, and I'm certain it'll be a topic at G20 as well. I know there's been conversations with them at a technical level, but we don't have anything to announce on it. Obviously, we've heard their perspective, they've heard ours, but that's still a work in progress. Sir, what does this Hawaiian story make you concerned about being able to trust the Chinese on these issues, that they're not playing straight? What do you mean? Well, there are allegations of Chinese spying related to trying to acquire information about NVIDIA's practices. Does that color the way you feel about talks with them to regulate AI? Well, let me just say, I think that the Chinese system is always going to act in the best interest of the Chinese system. And the United States will always act in the best interest of the United States. So we're going to do whatever it takes. I work for the American people. The president represents and works for the American people. We are always going to be on the American side of every issue. Now, we understand the Chinese are going to be on the Chinese side of every issue. The difference between this president and previous administrations is sometimes other presidents forgotten, other administrations and other people in the role that I play now have forgotten that we work for America. We don't work for the global order. We don't work for other countries. We work for the United States. And so on policy matters such as this or anything other, whether it's our bilateral relation with the country, the status of AI. We are always going to be in favor of what's good for America and Americans beyond and above everything else. And that will often put us in conflict or in disagreement with other countries, including China. So we're realistic and open-eyed about it, but I work for America. We're always going to, and the president fights for America, and so we're always going to be on the American side of every issue. What's the status of the trilateral talks between... U.S., Russia, and China right now. Trump said those talks might include denuclearization. Is that something that China is open to ahead of this summit? Well, I don't want to characterize what they're open to or not. Suffice it to say that I think there's an intent to have that meeting. We're working to organize it and to frame it in the appropriate way. And hopefully, you know, we'll have some news for you about that fairly soon. But I don't have an announcement on it today other than to tell you what's already been stated, which is that the president wants that meeting to happen if it's possible. We think it should be possible and that among the topics he believes that should be discussed. Is the status of nuclear weapons in the world, which the president thinks it's proliferation, is very dangerous. Secretary Rubio, the Egyptian foreign minister was present today. You waived $320 million of military assistance to Egypt, waiving the Human Rights conditions on that earlier this year. Since then, there's been a very big crackdown on independent journalism in Egypt. Is that something you've raised with your Egyptian counterparts? Well, we didn't discuss it today, but Egypt has also, I mean, like anything else in foreign policy, there's always a balancing act. To further the national interest of the United States. And in the end, Egypt has been a reliable and good defense partner of the United States. Thank We've made requests of them in the past that are key to our national security, and they've complied. And so I think decisions that we make reflect that. That doesn't mean you agree with everything another government does. You It may happen. I'm not opining about the journalists. I'm just saying in general, there may be things you don't agree with. very But at the end of the day, when you make a mature foreign policy, it requires you to balance those things, particularly when a country, you've made requests of them much. that are important for us, and they've complied with it. And so they've proven to be, you know, good, reliable partners on a number of fronts. There are reports that the U.S. evacuated some military aircraft from another air base. Yeah, I have to refer you to the Department of War on that. I mean, I saw, like, a headline somewhere about it, but I can't comment on the decisions they make other than to say that all I will say to you is we're... We are constantly repositioning forces around the world for a variety of reasons, so I don't want to speak to a specific report. I'd have to refer you to the Department of War on that. I've been here. Secretary on Iran, you talked about their bleeding. Do you have a timeline for... How long the Iranian regime can hold on? And if the endgame regime collapses, will the regime come to the table with less? No, I think the way to look at it is, you do bad things, bad things will happen to you. That's the way to read it. And at the end of the day, bad things are happening to the Iranian economy. And it's unfortunate. The people of Iran deserve better. But it's their own leaders that are imposing this on them. This is not a country that in the past, for example, when Obama gave them sanctions relief, They didn't use that money to build up hospitals, roads, bridges, and universities. They used that money to build weapons and arm proxies in the region to attack us and other countries. So it's unfortunate that they have to be punished for that and that the Iranian people ultimately pay the price. But that's because they have really bad lunatic leaders. So we just have to deal with that reality. But, you know... For bad behavior, there will be consequences. There has to be. Otherwise, countries like these, regimes like this, will do whatever they want. There's been sanctions for many years. The embargo has been on for quite a few months now. Is there a timeline? No, it hasn't been on for a few months. So, for example, the blockade that was initiated and it was stopped as part of the MOU that they themselves violated. They violated the MOU. They canceled the MOU by attacking shipping again. So if you look at the blockade, they got oil out. During the MOU period, that oil that's now on the water is almost out. So at that point, they won't have any revenue. So you say sanctions have been in place. Never has Iran ever faced the inability to sell energy in the global market like they are today. They've never faced this and other things that we're doing, which I can't discuss. that are having a huge impact on the economy. In hindsight, was the MOU a mistake? Well, I think the MOU was a good faith effort, I guess, to sort of try to figure out a diplomatic means. But I think it confirmed for me and for others who you're dealing with here. In the end, they violated the MOU. They've insisted that an end to the conflict in Lebanon be part of the ceasefire. Is that one of the demands you consider absurd, or is that something... Well, why would we negotiate Lebanon with Iran? What does Iran have to do with Lebanon? I mean, they can claim whatever they want, but Lebanon is its own country. To figure out the future of Lebanon, we'll deal with Lebanon, not with Iran. Now, I think by saying that to you, they're admitting that they are the ones that are behind Hezbollah. That has destroyed that country. Everything bad that's happened to Lebanon has been the direct result of Hezbollah's presence there. We deal with the Lebanese government. We deal with President Aoun. We deal with the Lebanese armed forces. That's who we did an agreement with Israel and Lebanon with. So why would we talk to Iran about Lebanon? It's none of their business. Israel to hold back on attacks in Lebanon and work with the population. Well, we've already been engaged. I don't know if you tracked this, but we've already been engaged in peace negotiations directly between Lebanon and the Israelis. That's created the pilot zones in the south. Well, we're... Iran, the Israelis are pulling back from regions and the LAF is taking over them and we'll be on top of that and want that to continue to happen. We are actively now trying to construct a verification model for that so that trusted verifiers can verify that both sides are complying. But this is an issue we're going to work as mediators between Lebanon and Israel, not Iran. Iran has no role to play when it comes to Lebanon other than stop sponsoring and supporting Hezbollah because Hezbollah has done tremendous damage to the state of Lebanon and to the people of Lebanon. Did you discuss with your Saudi counterpart the second front kind of that the Houthis have opened with their attacks on Aramco, on Riyadh's airport, on all of these? Oh, I mean, we didn't discuss it here in depth. We've discussed it plenty with them quite a bit. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, and we're concerned about that, obviously. And we and others, you know, we have defense agreements with Saudi Arabia, and we're living up to those commitments. And other countries are involved in supporting them as well. But it's another point to be made. If you guys go through the Middle East, talk about all the instability in the Middle East, Houthis, the militias in Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas, the civil war that occurred in Syria that almost destroyed that country. Thank you. What do these things all have in common? Behind every single one of these destabilizing activities in the Middle East, there's one common denominator. The Iranian regime, they are behind all the instability in the region. They are the source of instability in the region. And I think the countries of the region realize that as well. Saudi Arabia, others realize it as well. But, yeah, we're troubled by what we see with the Houthi engagement, what's happening with the Houthis. And it's a real problem. And I think the Saudis know who's behind it. It's not ultimately the Houthis wouldn't even exist were it not for Iranian support. So that said. It's something we'll continue to help them with and hopefully can be solved. Okay, guys, let's go home. Thank you. Thank you.