Don't Ask Rubio to Resign

These days, the hills are not alive with the Sound of Music.

They’re alive with the Sound of Vitriol.

Depending on where you stand on President Trump’s Iran deal, that vitriol is aimed at Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, or both.

Of the two, Rubio intrigues me more.

There are increasing calls for Marco to resign. I think they're mistaken.

These calls come from two sides—supporters of the Iran deal and those who oppose it.

Rubio is presumed to be one of the skeptics, along with Secretary of War Hegseth and DCIA Ratcliffe. All three were cited in a leak initially reported by Axios that has never been really contradicted.

They contended that intercepted communications indicated the Iranian regime had no intention of actually giving up its nuclear weapons aspirations despite the deal. In other words, as before, they were obfuscating and double-dealing, using negotiations to buy time and distract as they have done on multiple occasions.

All across the internet are photos of Marco, standing behind Trump, looking disconsolate. Rumors abound that Trump has told him and the others to get on board or they will be fired. Whether this is true has not been substantiated. If some version of it is, it may have been uttered in one of the president’s more extreme moments (employing his “maximalist” approach to negotiating) that he does not always act on. Rubio is the man who, not all that long ago, he deemed the “greatest ever Secretary of State.”

The more hawkish on Iran urge Marco to resign to preserve his reputation and possibly to run in 2028. Others want to fire him for imagined insubordination.

Not only do I think both are wrong, but I also believe that the result (no Marco at State), no matter how motivated, would be dangerous for the U.S. and the world.

The fourteen-point MOU is just that, a Memorandum of Understanding that could be, likely is, understood differently by the parties. The administration insists that the Iranian regime must perform like a normal nation, show it is able to shed its violent, theocratic past, in order to get its “rewards,” as Vance explained Thursday in a press conference. Those rewards are huge, ultimately many hundreds of billions in cash, with sanctions removed and investment in the country promoted by the Gulf States and others, giving Iran legitimacy in the international community it hasn’t had for decades.

President Trump and others say it will take decades to make up for what our military and Israel’s have done to that country. Maybe, but they seem to have rebounded relatively quickly and fired missiles at multiple locations, a number of which were on target. That serious limitations on missiles and drones have been omitted from the discussion thus far is a gaping flaw in this agreement, even if at this preliminary juncture.

Much as we might wish otherwise, for good or ill, the vast majority of us citizens have next to no influence on foreign policy. At a moment like this, having both sides of the debate represented in the cabinet would not just be advisable, but mandatory. An Iran skeptic ought to be there in a key position. That person, who has had years of foreign affairs experience and, from his Cuban background, knows all too well the treachery of which totalitarian governments are capable, is Marco, our Secretary of State. He should feel to speak out—and from that position of influence.

The purpose of the cabinet is to advise the president. The final decisions, correctly and constitutionally, belong to him or (eventually, someday) her. Trump, to his credit, claims not to want a community of yes-men or women (although he clearly enjoys praise). He should want Rubio's presence in the cabinet more than ever, if only to give credence if Iran evenutally gets those rewards. (They already have some front-loaded with the US naval blockade steaming away and Iranian oil flowing again through Hormuz.)

I have my own personal experience of Marco that goes back a decade (2015-2016), when he was first running for president and I was introduced to him. I interviewed him a couple of times for PJTV and then, trapped in a snowstorm, wound up accidentally watching the Super Bowl with him and his children in the lounge of a New Hampshire motel where we were both staying for the state’s primary. He was great to his kids, a significant measure of a man. He was also easy to talk to, relatively candid (for a politician), and seemingly a good guy all around. He’s also a first-rate public speaker with a solid sense of humor.

At this moment he’s needed inside the government more than ever.

SOMETHING DISCONCERTING

JD Vance wound up his press conference today with some unnecessary pot shots at Israel. It’s as if Israeli concerns with this deal, especially Lebanon, were irrational when Hezbollah, by far Iran’s most important proxy, has been making life unlivable for northern Israeli communities, with short moments of respite, for nigh onto forty years.

Yes, there are ungrateful Israelis, as Vance pointed out, and they deserve to have their ears boxed or more. But the Vice President made the claim that the USA was Israel’s only friend. Whether by ignorance or design, this omits a host of countries, including Argentina, the second-largest nation in South America, which, under Milei, is moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Czechia has similar plans, as does Ecuador. Among those already there are Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Paraguay, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and fledgling Somaliland. Still others act standoffish or even hypocritcally attack Israel, while lining up to purchase their technology—medical, civilian and miliary.

What’s disturbing here is Vance’s seemingly emotional need to suddenly smear the Jewish state on the way out the door of his presser, a kind of “last licks.” Doesn’t he realize what he says only encourages the already escalating global antisemitism? Is that what he wants to do? Where does it come from?

Seems a bit like the Sound of Vitriol to me.

A NON-VITROLIC REMINDER

Nothing is more welcome to us than comments in our comments section, for or against. Not one has ever been blocked. We all learn from the comments. I know I do. Some are better than the articles and deserve applause. I hesitated for a long time to go paid, because I wanted to keep them open, to keep the community building. But as a reminder, a subscription program that allows only paying subscribers to comment has just been instituted. We’d be honored if you gave it a try. The Sound of Vitriol may be bad, but there’s nothing worse than the Sound of Silence (in a comments section).

And heartfelt thanks to those pioneers who were the first to subscribe. May you be INscribed in Heaven.