Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said that President Trump started the war with Iran due to Tehran's buildup of missiles and drones [1].
This testimony provides a high-level justification for the escalation of military hostilities, linking the conflict directly to the protection of Iran's nuclear ambitions. It frames the U.S. military response as a necessary measure to preserve global nuclear non-proliferation goals and national security [1].
Rubio spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington, D.C. [1]. He said the buildup of drones and missiles in Iran was intended to shield the country's nuclear program from external threats [1]. According to Rubio, this strategic accumulation of weaponry threatened U.S. security, which prompted the decision by Trump to initiate the conflict [1].
During the testimony, Rubio addressed the status of specific military actions. He said that Operation Epic Fury in Iran is "over" [3]. The operation was part of the broader military response to the Iranian buildup discussed during the committee hearing [1].
Rubio also touched upon the current state of diplomacy regarding the conflict. He said, "Trump has pretty solid deal on the table" [2]. This suggests that while the military phase of Operation Epic Fury has concluded, the administration is pursuing a negotiated settlement to resolve the remaining tensions with Tehran [2].
The testimony highlights the intersection of conventional military threats and nuclear proliferation. By citing the specific use of drones and missiles as the catalyst for war, Rubio established a causal link between Iran's defensive capabilities and the U.S. offensive response [1].
“Operation Epic Fury in Iran is "over"”
The testimony clarifies the Trump administration's strategic rationale for engaging in a direct conflict with Iran, specifically citing the 'defensive' buildup of missiles and drones as an intolerable risk to nuclear non-proliferation. By declaring Operation Epic Fury over while mentioning a 'solid deal,' the administration is signaling a shift from active kinetic operations toward a diplomatic exit strategy.
