Marco Rubio is the U.S. official John Kiriakou names as the real motivator behind pressure on Venezuela. Kiriakou argues that Venezuela is not a meaningful drug threat to the United States — its drugs transit toward West Africa and Western Europe, not America, and Mexico, Colombia and Ecuador are far bigger problems — and that neoconservative holdovers have convinced the president otherwise. The true driver, he says, is Rubio’s desire to see Maduro gone, with some 20 proposed operations awaiting selection.[1][2][3]
‘A true believer’ (Consortium News)
John Kiriakou calls Marco Rubio “one of the most dangerous figures” in the Iran equation — an “old-style neoconservative” whose hatred of communism extends to Islam, in the mold of John McCain and Barry Goldwater. Unlike the cynics, Rubio is “a true believer,” which Kiriakou considers “a serious problem.”[4][5]
Opposition to Rubio’s Secretary of State appointment
Kiriakou has repeatedly said he would not have named Rubio Secretary of State, calling him a cold warrior opposed to any rapprochement between the United States and Cuba, Iran, or North Korea.[6][7] He has singled out Rubio’s public claim that Cuba’s economy fails simply because “communism doesn’t work,” arguing the U.S. has never actually let Cuba’s economy operate without 60 years of trade sanctions.[8]
Both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor
Kiriakou notes Rubio holds both the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor posts simultaneously — a combination without much precedent, comparable only to Henry Kissinger holding both from 1975–76 — and argues one person cannot effectively do both jobs, since the National Security Advisor runs day-to-day operations while the Secretary of State’s role is more ceremonial and diplomatic.[9] With Rubio in both seats, and with J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs all reportedly opposed to attacking Iran, Kiriakou says Rubio is effectively the one running Iran policy.[10] Elsewhere, however, Kiriakou has argued Rubio has essentially nothing to do with the actual Iran talks — those are run by Steve Witkoff — because Rubio is a neocon whose Secretary of State appointment was largely meant to pacify a faction of the Republican Party, and because he lacks the political strength to stand up to Trump independently.[11]
The 2028 prediction
Assessing the Republican field in July 2026, John Kiriakou named JD Vance the party’s leading candidate and current front-runner — and then said he does not expect Vance to be the nominee, on the grounds that he is very young and could run every four years for the next forty if he wanted. “I think the nominee’s going to be Marco Rubio.”[12]
Asked separately for a one-word assessment of Rubio, Kiriakou answered: “Another war criminal.”[13]
The McCain succession
Describing the division inside the second Trump administration over the Iran war, Kiriakou sorted its principals into two camps and put Rubio in the interventionist one: alongside figures “like Tulsi Gabbard and J.D. Vance, who reportedly have been opposed to these foreign interventions”, he said, stood “others like Marco Rubio, who is sort of the successor to the John McCain wing of that party.” The consequence, in his account, was that “the party and the president himself don’t know which direction to go.” See the Republican split over the Iran war.[14]
The 2028 pledge
Two days before the 2026 attack on Iran, Rubio said he would not run for president if it looked as though J.D. Vance would be the nominee. Kiriakou found the condition self-defeating and said so on air.
“Well, you don’t know if J.D. Vance is going to be the nominee until you run against him. And so, I think that Rubio’s lying to us. I think that he will run for president.”[15]
The reading fits his separate judgement that the war had opened a lane — Vance being, in his account, too young and inexperienced to survive a national campaign, and the war being the thing that made his position unsustainable.[16][15]