2026-06-25T18:04:58.210Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/25/politics/marco-rubio-iran-agreement
一周多以来，美国最高外交官一直刻意对一件本应属于其职责范围内的事态保持沉默：一份与伊朗达成的初步协议。
这让不少人猜测，与其他保守派外交政策鹰派同僚一样，国务卿马可·鲁比奥可能对该协议心存疑虑。
如今，鲁比奥终于公开表态了。但他的推销说辞与总统唐纳德·特朗普和副总统JD·万斯大相径庭。
在访问中东盟友以争取支持、安抚盟友担忧的行程中，鲁比奥不仅未对这份饱受争议的谅解备忘录作出强有力的肯定，还就谅解备忘录的具体条款与和平进程发表了明显不同的论调。
周四的一番表态便是明证，鲁比奥重申了其过往言论，将伊朗领导人称为“宗教……疯子”。
“伊朗政权由神职人员领导——激进神职人员，”鲁比奥在访问巴林期间说道。“一直以来都是如此，现在依然如此。”
但就在一周前，特朗普和万斯将伊朗描绘成可能已改弦易辙的形象，引发了诸多热议。
事实上，特朗普明确驳斥了伊朗现任领导人“被激进化”的说法。
“我们打交道的人，我认为都非常理性，”6月16日在法国举行的G7峰会上，特朗普说道。“他们很好打交道。他们是强大的人，聪明的人。……但他们并未被激进化，而且，你懂的，他们正致力于帮助自己的国家。”
万斯抓住机会成为该协议的代言人，他同样暗示，伊朗可能对近50年来的反美外交政策有所悔悟。
“这些谈判中有一点非常有意思——你会看到，无论是强硬派，还是更多政治人士，都在说，我们过去47年与美国的关系是个错误。让我们翻开新的篇章，”万斯说道。
万斯和鲁比奥都在发言中留有余地，强调局势可能生变，唯有时间能证明伊朗的真实意图。
但值得注意的是，这两位特朗普曾公开谈论其2028年竞选前景的高级官员，对德黑兰领导层的看法截然不同。
这份谅解备忘录最令人费解的疏漏之一，就是未提及终止伊朗的导弹计划。这曾是特朗普政府在战争伊始就明确提出的目标之一，但备忘录对此只字未提。
更蹊跷的是，特朗普上周明显软化了这一立场。他多次表示，伊朗至少应该被允许拥有一些导弹。
“他们必须拥有一些，因为其他国家也有，”特朗普说道。他还补充称，“导弹不是问题”，因为“它们不会毁灭地球”。
特朗普后来在谈及伊朗导弹计划时还表示：“相对而言，我认为这没问题。”
但鲁比奥周三在与中东盟友会谈时则态度强硬得多——这些盟友对伊朗使用导弹深感担忧，这完全可以理解。他表示，美国政府与这些盟友立场一致，不会坐视伊朗威胁它们。
“我们不会做任何损害我们盟友——该地区我们长期盟友——安全的事情，”当被问及伊朗使用导弹和无人机一事时，鲁比奥在科威特说道。
特朗普政府最初提出的另一项未被列入谅解备忘录的目标，是终止伊朗对真主党、哈马斯等代理组织的支持。
鲁比奥本周暗示，谅解备忘录在这方面的实际效力可能比表面看起来更强。
他辩称，协议中关于伊朗、美国及其盟友将避免“任何相互敌对行动，并且不会对彼此威胁或使用武力”的条款，适用于伊朗对代理组织的支持。他表示，“仔细研读”谅解备忘录就能证明这一点。
“只要伊朗代理组织从伊拉克发射导弹和无人机，像哈马斯和真主党那样参与恐怖活动，该地区的敌对行动和冲突就无法终结，”鲁比奥周二在阿布扎比说道。“因此，我确实认为这一点包含在谅解备忘录中。”
万斯上周在接受CNN记者杰克·塔珀采访时也提出了类似观点。
他表示，谅解备忘录的相关条款意味着“伊朗人必须停止资助暴力恐怖组织，停止资助地区动荡”。
但特朗普的态度却并非如此坚定。
事实上，上周在G7峰会上，特朗普似乎将代理组织问题与导弹问题一并归为后续待解决事项，作为他所谓“与海湾国家并行努力解决非核问题”的一部分。
“我们还将谈论他们拥有的恐怖代理组织——我们不希望这种情况发生，”总统说道。
几乎没有哪个问题像以色列与黎巴嫩真主党之间持续不断的冲突那样，危及到这项初步和平进程。
在周二阿布扎比的新闻发布会上，鲁比奥表示，黎巴嫩局势与美伊和平进程是两码事。
“嗯，这个进程是独立的，”鲁比奥说道。“它是独立的，因为黎巴嫩是一个主权国家。它有自己的政府。谈到黎巴嫩以及黎巴嫩国内正在发生的事情，我们将直接与黎巴嫩政府谈判达成协议。”
但这与谅解备忘录的内容以及万斯的解释难以自洽。
以色列和黎巴嫩政府都未参与这份谅解备忘录。但该协议据称会迫使美伊的“盟友”——这无疑包括以色列和真主党——参与“立即并永久终止所有战线的军事行动，包括黎巴嫩境内的行动”。
上周在白宫简报会上被要求解释谅解备忘录中黎巴嫩相关条款时，万斯表示，该条款约束以色列和真主党。
“这意味着我们期望真主党不会向以色列发射火箭和无人机。我们也期望以色列不会在黎巴嫩肆意行动，对吗？”万斯说道。“双方都必须履行协议中的义务。”
特朗普和万斯上周还向以色列施加了巨大压力，要求其不要对真主党进行过度报复。他们甚至近乎隐晦地威胁，如果以色列的军事行动破坏了与伊朗的和平进程，就撤回美国对这个长期盟友的支持。
但这一立场在保守派外交政策鹰派中引发了争议，他们认为政府实际上是在强迫以色列不要自卫反击真主党。
于是鲁比奥站出来缓和局面。
但目前尚不清楚他的说法是否真的代表了政府的立场。
而随着他挺身而出公开表态，这种情况正变得越来越普遍。
Rubio’s spin on the Iran MOU sounds different from Trump and Vance
2026-06-25T18:04:58.210Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/25/politics/marco-rubio-iran-agreement
For more than a week, America’s top diplomat was conspicuously quiet about something that would have seemed very much in his wheelhouse: a nascent agreement with Iran.
This led plenty to surmise that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, like many of his fellow conservative foreign policy hawks, might have had misgivings about it.
Well, now Rubio is actually speaking. But his sales pitch sounds quite a bit different from President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance.
During visits with Middle Eastern allies to rally support and soothe fears, Rubio has not only avoided forceful affirmations of the controversial memorandum of understanding; he’s also sounded a significantly different tone about the particulars of the MOU and the peace process.
A case in point came Thursday, when Rubio doubled down on his past statements labeling Iran’s leaders as “religious … lunatics.”
“The Iranian system is led by clerics – radical clerics,” Rubio said during a visit to Bahrain. “That’s what it’s always been led by. And that’s what it continues to be led by.”
But the comments came a week after Trump and Vance raised plenty of eyebrows by pitching the Iranians as potentially reformed.
In fact, Trump expressly rejected the idea that its current leaders were “radicalized.”
“We’re dealing with people that I think are very rational people,” Trump said June 16 at the G7 summit in France. “They were nice to deal with. They were strong people, smart people. … But they’re not radicalized, and they’re, you know, looking to help their country.”
Vance, who jumped at the chance to be the face of the agreement, likewise suggested the Iranians might be having second thoughts about nearly five decades of anti-American foreign policy.
“This is a very interesting thing about these negotiations – is you see people, both the hard-liners, but also the more political people, saying our relationship with the United States over the past 47 years has been a mistake. Let’s turn over a new leaf,” Vance said.
Both Vance and Rubio tempered their comments by emphasizing that things could change and that time would tell what the Iranians’ true intentions are.
But it’s notable that these top two officials — whose 2028 prospects Trump has openly mused about — offered very different takes on Tehran’s leadership.
One of the most curious absences from the MOU was anything about ending Iran’s missile program. This had been one of the Trump administration’s stated goals at the start of the war, but the MOU was silent on it.
Even more curiously, Trump seemed to walk that goal back significantly last week. He said repeatedly that Iran should be allowed to have at least some missiles.
“They have to have some, because other people have some,” Trump said. He added that “missiles aren’t the problem” because “they don’t blow up the planet.”
Trump later added of Iran’s missile program: “In relative proportion, I think it’s OK.”
But Rubio on Wednesday suggested a much tougher line while speaking with Middle Eastern allies who are understandably quite concerned about Iran’s use of those missiles. He said the administration was aligned with those allies and wouldn’t let Iran threaten them.
“We’re not going to do anything that undermines the security of our allies – our longstanding allies in the region,” Rubio said in Kuwait, when asked about Iran’s use of missiles and drones.
Another of the Trump administration’s original goals that wasn’t spelled out in the MOU was ending Iran’s support for proxy groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
Rubio suggested this week that the MOU was stronger than it might have appeared on that front.
He argued that the agreement’s statement that Iran, the US and their allies would avoid “any hostile action against each other, and will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other” applied to Iran’s support for the proxies. He said a “careful reading” of the MOU demonstrated that.
“You can’t have the end of hostilities and conflicts in the region as long as Iranian proxies are launching missiles and drones from Iraq and are participating in terrorism like Hamas did and like Hezbollah did,” Rubio said Tuesday in Abu Dhabi. “So I do think it’s covered by the MOU.”
Vance offered a version of this same argument last week in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper.
He said that that part of the MOU meant that “Iranians have to stop funding violent terrorist organizations, they have to stop funding regional instability.”
But Trump hasn’t been so firm.
In fact, at the G7 last week, Trump seemed to lump the proxy issue in with missiles as something to be dealt with later, as part of what he called “a parallel effort with the Gulf nations to address non-nuclear issues.”
“And we’ll talk also about the terrorist proxies that they have that – we don’t want that to happen,” the president said.
Few issues jeopardize the nascent peace process like ongoing fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
In the Tuesday press conference in Abu Dhabi, Rubio indicated the peace process there would be distinct from the US-Iran peace process.
“Well, that process is separate,” Rubio said. “It’s separate, because Lebanon is a sovereign country. It has a government. And when it comes to Lebanon and what’s happening inside of Lebanon, we’re going to negotiate a deal directly with the Lebanese government.”
But that’s difficult to square with the MOU and Vance’s explanation of it.
Neither Israel nor the Lebanese government was party to the MOU. But the agreement purported to force US and Iranian “allies” — which would surely include Israel and Hezbollah — to participate in the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
When asked to explain the Lebanon component of the MOU at a White House briefing last week, Vance suggested it bound Israel and Hezbollah.
“What that means is we expect Hezbollah is not going to be firing rockets and firing drones at the Israelis. And we also expect that the Israelis are not going to be going wild in Lebanon, right?” Vance said. “Both sides have to honor their end of the deal.”
Trump and Vance last week also applied significant pressure on Israel not to retaliate against Hezbollah too hard. They even seemed to not-so-subtly threaten to pull US support for its longtime ally if its military actions ruined the peace process with Iran.
But that stance was problematic with conservative foreign policy hawks, who thought the administration was effectively trying to force Israel not to defend itself against Hezbollah.
So up steps Rubio to smooth things over.
But it’s not clear that his version is actually the administration’s posture.
And as he steps forward to speak out, that’s becoming a trend.