QUESTION: All right. So, Mr. Secretary, I really want to thank you for taking the time to do this with us here. We're here in the Thomas Jefferson Room at the State Department. I think no better place than - to talk about Western civilization —
SECRETARY RUBIO: Right.
QUESTION: — and protecting it than, frankly, the - one of the most important founders of our great country. You just gave a massive speech at the Acropolis in Greece - in Athens, Greece. Talk to us about that message that you had about defending the West.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I think the message is at the core of a lot of what we're trying to instill in our foreign policy. I think people sometimes forget - like, look around our system of government, our culture, our values, the things we believe as a country are important. They're not just words on paper. They are backed up by thousands of years of civilization. We are the heirs, we inherited from Greece and from Rome, and ultimately through Europe, many of the values that today are in our country. A lot of people view that as an attack on other cultures, but it's not. I'm just saying every culture should be proud of themselves. The only culture, the only civilization in the world today who seems apologetic about its history and its achievements is the West. And it's having a dramatic impact on foreign policy.
It is important for us to remind ourselves that we, too, are heirs to a great civilization that has done great things for humanity and for the world; that many of the things we take for granted in our everyday life, whether it's the size and wealth of our country, whether it's our democracy and our republic, whether it's all of these things - they didn't come from nowhere. They came from a shared history that we need to rediscover and embrace. We're doing that here in this country under President Trump. We want more Western leaders to do the same.
QUESTION: So this is a message that you delivered as well, as well as the Vice President, at the Munich Security Conference the last couple of years. We - I think we've started seeing - I've had a lot of conversations with European leaders, particularly in Greece. I've interviewed the prime minister there twice, and several of their ministers. They do, slowly but surely, seem to be coming the United States's way, following the lead of the Trump Administration on things like security and migration and other policies as well. Are you noticing a shift worldwide, particularly around the West, in Europe and elsewhere, our way?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, I think I've noticed receptivity, that they're receptive to what we're saying. And even privately, I think a lot of leaders will tell you that was a great speech, we agree with you. Obviously, it takes time for that to translate into policy.
I also think there is still - and I think this is true even in our country, but certainly in Europe and in other parts of the world - they're still worried that signing up for this thing - well, signing up for this point of view and speaking the way we have will open them up to criticisms from their far left, from their media, from their academia, from their entrenched bureaucracy. Because we've allowed this point of view to be stigmatized as something that's evil, when in fact it should embraced as - embraced as something that is good.
So the answer is yes, I sense more receptivity. And I think where you're really going to start seeing it play out is in elections; as more and more leaders are willing to say these things and then get elected, that is ultimately what's going to shift the way other countries respond to our shared interests.
QUESTION: One of the reasons why I think we really hit it off with the Greeks - and again, like I said, I've been there five times in the last year or so; I've interviewed the prime minister twice and a number of their ministers, including their energy minister - is that - is energy, right? Like, they are - unlike some other places in maybe Western Europe, they're actually going out there and seeking to do - explore their energy and get it, like we're doing here in the United States, getting their natural gas and oil. I know that major American energy companies are working over there. I think you met with the prime minister when you were there in Greece. Can you talk to us about that? And maybe there were some discussion about refineries and some big deals that happened while —
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, if you noticed, I mean, there was a lot of silliness around the world for the last 10 years about how energy - trying to de-emphasize energy; in fact, bragging about how expensive energy needed to become, fossil fuels, in order to get rid of them. No one's talking about that anymore, right? Everyone now - unfortunately, global crises remind us that at the core of anything we want to do, whether it's powering our everyday lives, our industries, or our defenses, it requires energy.
I think Greece is in a very unique place, both geographically and politically. Politically, they are open to energy exploration. In fact, they are encouraged by it and excited about it, and their population seems to support it as well, so that's good. And then geographically, they're located in a very key place as a transit corridor to build pipelines and ways to transmit energy. Energy is only as good as your ability to move it, whether it's oil or gas or the generation of electricity. And they're in a very important place because they are in the perfect place. They've always been the connector between Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. They're in a very key place, where in addition to generating energy, they can actually help transport it - north into Europe; south into Israel, the Middle East, broader - these are - it's - they're a very advantageous position geographically now for energy, as they have been for trade and so many other industries throughout history.
QUESTION: Is the hope that other countries follow their lead? Right, like the Italians, the British, right, like the Germans, et cetera, elsewhere around the world, that they go in and get their energy too. Why should we have to be dependent on the Middle East or the Russians or elsewhere for energy? Obviously, we would like them to take American energy, but should they all go and explore? I think natural gas is everywhere, right?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah.
QUESTION: Like, so should the rest of them be doing the same thing?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Absolutely. I remember, I was in the Senate at the time when President Trump, in his first term, said that the Germans had left themselves vulnerable to Russian energy as a tool of blackmail in case of conflict. And they laughed. They mocked him. Our media mocked the President for saying that, and our media celebrated European leaders that laughed at the President. Well, guess what? That's exactly what happened. Their dependence on Russian energy is one of the reasons why Putin went into Ukraine, because he thought he could, because he believed Europe wasn't going to do anything about it.
So I hope they've learned that lesson. It seems like they now are, but it takes time now to reverse-engineer 20 years of both this green hyperbole in terms of believing they're going to go completely green, and their belief that they could somehow not develop any domestic sources of energy and in fact just be overly reliant on one method.
So the answer is I hope they are, because Europe's future depends on it. Right now their economy faces, unfortunately, real stagnation in most of these countries, because their fuel costs, both for electricity and transport, are incredibly high. They were already higher than they should've been even before the recent conflicts.
QUESTION: So another big part of defending Western civilization is the Western Hemisphere. Obviously, President Trump and you have made a major focus on this throughout - there's been a major focus on Latin America in particular. Obviously, the Greenland deal that we have seen - now seen come together, and there's some big energy components with that as well. Can you talk to us a little bit about the shift back to focusing on our own backyard that we hadn't maybe seen from the last several administrations of either political party?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah. I think the - technology has allowed us to connect with the world so that today you can instantaneously talk to someone halfway around the world, and in some ways it causes us to forget that despite that, geography is still real. When it comes to people, geography is still real. Anything bad that happens in the Western Hemisphere is going to impact us faster than if something bad is happening in Africa, or in the Middle East, or in Asia - or anywhere, for that matter. So we need to care about it just from our national interest.
Understand that America's foreign policy, at its core, has to deal with what's in the national interest of the United States. It is in the national interest of the United States to live in a region in which we have as many not just partners, but allies, who are stable and secure as possible. And that's what we're hoping to achieve. You see that now. Now, the people in these countries are making this choice through their elections. But we have seen country after country choose pro-Western, pro-American, anti-drug-cartel candidates in place after place after place. And it's created a historically unique opportunity which, frankly, hasn't gotten the coverage it deserves, and President Trump hasn't gotten the credit he deserves for the fact that today, if I put a map of the Western Hemisphere in front of you and we said red were pro-American, blue for anti-American, the red has continued to grow and the blue continues to diminish to just a handful of places. This is an extraordinary, historic achievement, one that we need to build upon, and that we are very focused on.
QUESTION: Yeah, so we've seen countries - as you're mentioning there, Colombia, Peru - swinging the pro-American way in their recent elections. We have a big election upcoming in Brazil; we'll see what happens there. The - it really is remarkable just how fast this has happened across the Western Hemisphere. Why is it happening this quickly? I've seen some people out there suggesting, oh, it's USAID is gone - (laughter) - so they're not funding the NGOs and they're not funding the left.
SECRETARY RUBIO: No, it's —
QUESTION: I don't know if that's why, but maybe it's - that's part of it, but what do you think?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, I don't think it's a coincidence, to some extent, that the pulling foreign aid into the State Department and away from the sort of independent, do whatever they want organization, which was USAID, has had a direct impact on what's happening in the region. Absolutely. There are groups in that region that are clearly aligned with the anti-America left. Now, they may be dressed up as an environmental NGO, or a group that works with the indigenous population in these countries, but the reality of it is they are part of this anti-American global network of NGOs. And we were funding many of them. We were funding many of them.
Now our foreign aid, it's still - we're still the most generous country in the world in foreign aid. The difference is our foreign aid is now designed specifically to further the national interest. We are not going to pay for things that are bad for America. We are not going to give money to people, organizations that hate America. And that's why - that's - now, whether or not I can prove to you that's had a direct impact on these elections, I'm not sure we've studied it. But I don't think it's a coincidence, in my personal view.
I think the other thing that's happened - understand these are not puppet presidents; these are elected by their populations. They're going to make decisions - as they should - that are in the national interests of their respective countries. But what they are is they are not leaders that hate America; they are leaders that would prefer to partner with us than any other country in the world, and who share our same priorities. They want to dismantle these narcoterrorist organizations that are operating in the region. They want more American investment in their countries. They want to be supportive of what we're doing on the global stage.
I think this an extraordinary achievement of President Trump and one that I just don't think has gotten enough coverage yet. But that's okay. History and the next few months and years will, I think, begin to give him the credit he deserves.
QUESTION: Well, we're going to give a lot of coverage —
SECRETARY RUBIO: Good. Good, good, good. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: — at Breitbart, Mr. Secretary. So the - now another thing about - so we've seen several major crises that you guys have responded to in the Western Hemisphere, that the State Department has directly led the aid in - after the shutdown of USAID. The latest is the earthquake in Panama —
SECRETARY RUBIO: Right.
QUESTION: — but we've seen in earthquakes in Venezuela and Colombia, as well as the hurricane in Jamica. Talk to us about the efforts that you guys have had on this. And we're going to talk to the Ambassador to Panama Kevin Cabrera this weekend.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Great ambassador.
QUESTION: Yeah. So - and we're going to have him on radio this weekend. But talk to us a little bit about the efforts in - what's changed and how it's different.
SECRETARY RUBIO: So when it comes to foreign assistance, there are two things that people - there's three, really: security assistance; there is foreign aid, like helping them deal with health issues and economic development issues; and then there's the humanitarian response - hurricane, earthquake, natural disasters. Without a doubt, the foreign aid has gotten way better in terms of direct aid, and it's getting better, but there's work still to be done. We're improving it, and it's an adjustment process.
The one that is unequivocally better right now - I mean, by far, just night and day - is humanitarian response. It is faster; it is more effective; it gets to the target way faster than ever before. We were able to deploy, for example, search and rescue teams substantially faster than the old model. And even those first responders are admitting it and telling us that. So every case is - Venezuela was a disaster. And we had to go in there and basically, like, run their airport, because their airport was shut down; you couldn't get aid in without that. But just the amount of assistance that went there was extraordinary and historic.
Jamaica was the first test of our system - worked excellent there. Panama - different than Venezuela, not as bad, not - appears to be no significant or any loss of life per se, but they had the destruction. And what you're seeing is media coverage - and Ambassador Cabrera will tell you this - the media coverage in Panama is recognizing it. They are seeing America was there fast and first. We're not doing more than we need to. We are doing everything we need to, and we're doing it based on what they're telling us they need, not what we tell them they need. And it's worked extraordinarily well. So all is very different. By the way, it's not just there. We've been able to help with that mudslide out in Asia. We've been able to help in other places. But we rely on those countries to tell us: this is what we need; this is what we desire. And then we try to fill that gap available to us.
But it's - no doubt, it's harder. It's - one of the things is this. If you're going to be a pro-America leader in a democracy, you have to go to voters and say, "Guys, we are friends with the United States and here are the benefits of being a friend of the United States." And I think the people of Panama are seeing that right now, and I think they saw it in Jamaica, and I think they've seen it in Venezuela. So there's a - for a long time, we demanded countries be friendly to us, but we didn't reward them. There was no, like, reward for being nice to the U.S. And oftentimes we seemed to pay more attention to our adversaries than we did to our friends. That has changed under President Trump, and I think, in many ways, is at the core of not just the change you've seen in the hemisphere but what I hope we'll make it permanent and enduring.
QUESTION: Okay. So I want to get to some of the other major global crises in a second. But on the - after your big speech at the Acropolis, a lot of people were - I got a new 2028 question, right? But a lot of people were wondering: Should Secretary Rubio run for president? There's a - I know you previously said that if the Vice President runs, JD Vance runs, you wouldn't run against him. I don't know if that position has changed. Where do you come down on this? Have you changed your mind on that? Are you considering running in 2028 or —
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, I'm not - I've said everything. I've already said things. Like, it doesn't matter how many times you say it. So at this point, I'm just not answering anymore 2028 questions. Not anything against you.
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.
SECRETARY RUBIO: It's the first time we've talked.
QUESTION: I know. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY RUBIO: But some of these reporters - that's all they ever ask me about. I'm just done with it. I'm doing my job. I have two jobs, and I'm focused on them. They take, like, every hour of the day. Sometimes I don't have enough hours in the day, depending on the day, to deal with my job. I just don't have time anymore for those questions.
As far as the speech is concerned, what am I supposed to be doing? I mean, I'm the Secretary of State. I'm supposed to be representing this country on the international stage. I think people liked the speech. I think they should be happy and pleased that their Secretary of State is delivering an important message on the global stage. I'm just doing my job.
Everybody here is doing their job. The Vice President right now is out there campaigning for candidates to keep us - he's doing his job. The Secretary of Treasury is crushing Iran with sanctions. He's doing his job. Everyone's doing their job, and I think we're all part of the same team. And I think we should all be encouraged when members of the team are doing their job and are doing it well - and I hope I'm doing it well in my roles. And - but that's kind of where it's at.
QUESTION: Okay. So now on the - one last question on Greece, too, and then I want to talk about Russia, Ukraine, and China - and Iran. We'll try to pack it all in. But just on Greece, we just saw the U.S. Ambassador Kimberly Guilfoyle was relieved by the President. The - I know a lot of people in Greece are going to watch this interview. They want to know what's next for Greece. Like, can you talk to us a little bit about what is coming down the pike? Where do - what can we expect for - when can we expect a new ambassador to be there? What are we going to be looking for in that? What's next for the relationship?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, Greece is an important country, very important. They're a great ally of the United States. They've been - helped us in so many different ways and they're important for our future. They're at the cornerstone of so much of what we care about, whether it's energy independence, whether it's regional stability, whether it's NATO and the role they play in NATO. So Greece deserves a strong and good ambassador that has access and the confidence - access to and confidence of the President.
And so obviously. we're in early stages. This interview is 48 hours after all this happened, so there will be a process to identify the right person, and obviously they have to go through the whole confirmation process.
In the meantime, we'll make sure we have a good team of people there on the ground. In no way should any of this be viewed as sort of a de-emphasizing of the Greek relationship. On the contrary, I think it's so important to us that it is important that the person that's there have the complete support and confidence of the President. So, we'll have to take time to identify who the right person is, because we want to get at least the kind of ambassador that deserves the merit and that rises to the level of the relationship and how important it is.
QUESTION: Okay. So now let's talk about Russia and Ukraine.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah.
QUESTION: The President really would like to end that thing. So I'm curious, the latest development is that the President did the deal with the Russians over the diesel, and has pushed both sides to not attack energy infrastructure. Both sides are apparently not following that. So first off, just meta, big picture here, how do we actually end this war between the Russians and the Ukrainians? I guarantee it never would have happened if President Trump was in the White House. But that being said, it's still going on. How do we end this thing? And talk to us a little bit about the latest stuff with the energy infrastructure.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah. So let me break this out into two buckets because they're both very important. Let me start with the most important one, and that is ultimately, the job of the President of the United States and all of us who work for him is to make sure that the national interest of the United States is foremost, before anything else, okay? Before what is good for another country, before what is good for another continent, it's what's good for America. It has to be, because if we're not looking out for our national interest, nobody else is going to.
And by the way, I expect every country to do things that way. Like, I expect the Colombian Government to put as their priority the national interest of Colombia. So, we have to put our national interest as the number one priority, above everything else. That doesn't mean we're deliberately looking for things that are bad for other countries, and hopefully what's in our national interest is in their national interest. But if it comes down to a conflict between what's good for them and what's good for us, we always have to be for what's good for us.
Right now, this economy, given what's going on around the world, needs a bigger diesel supply in the global economy. We've already done this once before, and the President chose to do it again, which is a 30-day moratorium on sanctions to allow more Russian delivery of diesel into the global marketplace. That'll impact and help the United States. It'll help other countries as well. And that's a decision he made not because it's bad for Ukraine or good for Russia, but because it's good for America and it's important for America.
Now let's talk about that conflict between Russia - the war between Russia and Ukraine. Here's the reality of it. This war is honestly about one part of Ukraine called Donetsk. The Russians occupy all but about 11 percent of that area. In that province, Donetsk or in that region of Donetsk, the Ukrainians have a defensive line that they've embedded themselves in. They argue - the military strategists say, and I think it's true - that it is the last defensible line; that if they give that up, there is nothing to defend Kyiv. From there it's a straight shot into Kyiv.
The core of this conflict is that Russia demands all of Donetsk, including that defensive line, as part of their territory. That's what they have defined as victory. And Ukraine has said we can't give up that 11 percent that's remaining of Donetsk because that defensive line is our last defensible line. Hence, that is at the core of this conflict.
Now, there are a lot of other issues going on, but ultimately that is really what they're fighting over. How are they fighting over it? The Russians have not been able to advance in the battlefield and take that region, so what they are doing is they are applying extraordinary pain on the people of Ukraine through drone strikes and ballistic missile strikes, trying to destroy their energy infrastructure, their electricity, the ability of Ukraine to generate electricity, especially with winter coming up.
How does Ukraine respond to this? They have responded by going after Russian oil and gas refineries, which is at the core of how their economy funds itself, and bringing the war home. For the first time, Russians are seeing explosions going on in Moscow, in St. Petersburg, deep into their territory. It's no longer a faraway war.
Hence, this is the situation we find ourselves in - not an easy one to negotiate and not an easy one to fix. The United States remains willing, able, and prepared to play a mediating role if one - if the opportunity presents itself to end this war through a negotiated settlement, which is how we think this war will ultimately end. But it has not been easy, not for lack of trying, because Jared and Steve and others have invested a lot of time into it, but because of the dynamics I've just described to you seem deeply entrenched right now. And - but we're going to keep trying as much as we can to see what we can do. We'd like for the war to end. But ultimately, we also have other priorities around the world we're focused on as well.
QUESTION: So Mr. Secretary, on the Russia-Ukraine war, so not to say - Putin's not a great guy. But at the same time, it does seem like there's some frustration now from the President with President Zelenskyy, and we've seen this bubble up at different moments. We're more than two and a half years, I believe, since the regularly scheduled elections that they were going to have in Ukraine. Is it time to have an election in Ukraine? I know that their constitution allows them, with the declaration of martial law, to suspend elections, which is what they've done during the war here. But is it time to maybe have an election, see a new president?
SECRETARY RUBIO: See, but look, the election issue comes up and I'm not saying it's irrelevant, but that's not at the core of why there's still a war going on.
QUESTION: Sure.
SECRETARY RUBIO: What I would say is the frustration more than anything else - and we've talked about this publicly. For example, months ago we have seen strikes on energy vessels in the Black Sea, and there have been complaints lodged because we have American companies calling us and saying hey, that was our oil on that ship that was hit by Ukraine. Now, I don't believe Ukraine intentionally targeted them, but those ships got hit. And we already have a world that is facing an energy crisis because of what's happening in Hormuz, what's happening in the Red Sea, what's happening in different places. We don't need any exacerbating situations, and there's been frustration despite these asks. That has happened.
So that's bubbled to the surface. That doesn't mean we don't have frustrations with the Russian side either. The President does not like to see this image of a ballistic missile hitting an apartment building in Kyiv and innocent civilians being wiped out as a result of it. He doesn't like that either. That's why this has been so frustrating to try to get a resolution to it.
QUESTION: Okay, so I want to talk about Iran now. So, with regard to the war in Iran, I think people around the country ahead of this midterm election, they want to see this thing wrapped up. At the same time, it does look like the President has achieved the original military objective, which is that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Address both of those points for us. How do we end this thing, a similar type of a thing for the - I think people want to see the war is over. How do we end this thing, but also what have we accomplished there so far?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Well, it's important to remind people why it started in the first place. Iran wanted to build a conventional shield of tens and tens of thousands of missiles and drones that once they got to that point, they would be able to say to the world, guys, we're now going to build a nuclear weapon and there's nothing you can do about it because we have many - so many drones and so many missiles that we will destroy the entire region, so you can't touch us; we are immune.
The President was not going to allow them to build a nuclear weapon hiding behind the conventional weapon shield that they were trying to achieve. So he destroyed their navy. He destroyed their air force. He destroyed their factories that make the missiles. Now, they still have them, but they can't make as many as they used to, far less able to make them the way they used to because he's destroyed their factories for drones and missiles. They don't have an air force, they don't have a navy, and they've lost a lot of air defenses as well. Large portions of their country are deeply vulnerable to future strikes, if necessary. So he's achieved that objective. They can no longer hide behind a conventional shield to build a nuclear weapon.
The second objective is they chose to take the straits hostage. They would have done it anyway. Imagine if Iran had a nuclear weapon. At that point they could say: And by the way, we own the Straits of Hormuz and you guys can't do anything about it because we won't just hit ships. We'll use a nuclear weapon against you if you try to do anything about it. They are trying to control the Straits of Hormuz. They lost control of the straits. Today, on average over the last 10 days and certainly over the last 30, about 13 to 14 million barrels of oil are going through the Straits of Hormuz out to the global market, and some days it's actually equivalent to what it was pre-conflict. And the U.S. military is involved in escorting and defending these ships from these strikes. Iran is still shooting at these, but by and large we've been able to get that flow going.
And at the same time, because Iran continues to fire at these ships, we have imposed crippling additional sanctions - Scott Bessent has been doing a great job on it - and a blockade. The only country in the world that cannot get a single barrel of oil through the Straits of Hormuz is Iran. They're the only ones, and we're inflicting tremendous pain on them. In addition, these sanctions are costing them money, which means that's money they don't have. Every dollar you deny them in sanctions is a dollar they don't have for Hizballah, a dollar they don't have for Hamas, a dollar they don't have for the terrorist militias inside of Iraq, and a dollar they don't have for their own military or their own nuclear ambitions.
So I understand people's frustration, because we all want it to be wrapped up. In some ways it is, and right now we are basically in the Strait of Hormuz as a defense posture and doing an excellent job of crippling their economy in the process.
QUESTION: So Mr. Secretary, another big thing. This is actually similar to the successes that we've seen around Latin America and the Western Hemisphere. Across the broader Middle East, I think when we look back on what President Trump has done, both in his first term here and in the second term, what you guys have been able to do here at the State Department, it's going to - it's - the Middle East looks very different than it did before. And there are still major conflicts and different things going on in different places, but the pathway to - I mean, look, peace in the Middle East used to be a bumper sticker slogan. It wasn't a serious thing, right? And now it's like a serious thing. We have a pathway to real peace in the Middle East and prosperity in the region, and that's because of many of the changes that President Trump has brought to the Middle East. Talk to us about that broader vision here, because I think when we look back on it, it's going to be a really historic thing.
SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah. So look, I think, traditionally, the American political class thought that peace in the Middle East, a core central issue is the Palestinian question. It's an important issue. It's not irrelevant. I'm not saying that it's irrelevant. But I think what President Trump has exposed is that the number one driver of instability and war and conflict, and the number one obstacle to peace in the Middle East, is the Islamic regime in Tehran. And I think the evidence bears it out.
In Lebanon, why is Lebanon a country that's used as an attack point against Israel and other interests? Who sponsors Hizballah? Hizballah is 100 percent an agent of Iran. In Iraq, why does that country still have terrorist militias that operate from their territory and launch missiles against Saudi Arabia, against Israel? Who sponsors them? They are Shia militias sponsored by Iran, which is the only country in the region that has launched not simply proxy attacks but direct attacks. Direct attacks against Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan - I'm probably leaving somebody out. Who's launched them? The only country in the region that's done that: Iran - direct attacks, in addition to what their proxies have done. By the way, with the Houthis now and Saudi Arabia, who is the number one sponsor of the Houthis? Iran.
So if you look at all the things that are going on in that region and all the flash points that exist there, they all track back to the Islamic Republic of Iran, to the clerical - radical clerics that run Iran from Tehran. They are the central problem in that region. If there was no Islamic clerics, these radical Shia clerics in Iran, if they didn't exist, if that wasn't there, none of these problems would exist. You may still have the Palestinian issue. I would argue that issue would be easier to deal with if Iran didn't exist. So, they're at the core of all of these problems, and I think correctly identifying who it is that's driving instability and war in the Middle East is important in order to solve it. And that issue has to be confronted, and I think what's happened in the last few months has revealed it for the world to see.
QUESTION: Okay. The last thing I really want to ask you about here is the President's address to the UN General Assembly. He talked about the use of American power to achieve the American objective. Can you lay out that America First foreign policy for us? What is that America First foreign policy? How do we do what the President talked about in that address to achieve that American First - America First objectives? How do we use that American power?
SECRETARY RUBIO: Look, first of all, I know that, like, people in the media - not this media but other media - like to criticize the term America First as sort of evil thing. Let me ask you, how many candidates would be elected if they went out and told the American people, my job is to put America second, or America third, or America last? If they don't like America First, they should have the guts to go out there and tell people, I am running for office on the belief that our foreign policy should be driven by America second or America third. No one ever does that because I think, at its core, everyone understands that our foreign policy, which is what I can speak about, has to be about what is good for America. I think every country should do that for their own countries, and foreign relations is how you untangle the differences.
So I think the President is basically saying common sense, which is, our foreign policy, what we do around the world, is going to be driven by what's good for America. Now, we would argue that what is good for America is probably also good for many of our allies as well. And in those instances in which what's good for us and what's good for someone we like are not exactly aligned, then we'll work on it with diplomacy and try to manage all of that. But in the end, America First is common sense. It's what it is.
And I think what the President is saying is that we as a country, we're the largest economy in the world, the most powerful military in the world, the most influential culture in the world. We are going to use all the elements of American power to further the interests of the United States, which we believe also furthers the interests of our allies and the broader world. So - but America First, I mean, we're going to always do what's right for America before anything else. We're going to put it before the UN. We're going to put it before the global commons or whatever you want to call it, the global order that people worshipped around here for a very long time. We're not against of those things. We're just not going to put them ahead of American interests anymore.
That's what the President is doing. And it offends a lot of people in these think tanks and editorial writers. But if we had listened to them, I mean, at this point America would be a middle power.
