michael waltz stepped into a tense public debate on Sunday, defending President Donald Trump’s threat to hit Iran’s power plants and bridges while insisting that diplomacy is still the point of the moment. The comments came as new in-person talks were set to move forward in Islamabad on Monday, with Washington trying to keep pressure and negotiation moving at the same time.
What did Michael Waltz say about Trump’s threat?
In an interview on ABC News’ “This Week” with Jonathan Karl, Waltz said “all options are on the table” and argued that infrastructure tied to both civilian and military use can be a lawful target. He said the Iranian air defenses had been “absolutely decimated, ” making such strikes easier to carry out.
Pressed on whether striking every bridge and power plant would amount to a war crime, Waltz said the issue should be understood as part of an escalating conflict. He compared the argument to World War II and said bridges and power plants have long been used in warfare because they can support drone and missile production. He also said the Iranian regime and its proxies have a history of placing military infrastructure inside civilian spaces, including hospitals, schools, and neighborhoods.
Why is the administration talking about force and diplomacy at the same time?
Waltz said Trump was “putting diplomacy first” even while backing that approach with what he described as significant and capable military power. He called the upcoming engagement with Iranian officials the highest-level contact between the two sides in 47 years, since the regime first came to power. That framing shows the administration trying to hold two messages together: a deal is still possible, but the threat of force remains open.
The political language is unusually sharp. Trump posted that the United States could “knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran” if Tehran does not accept what he called a fair and reasonable deal. Waltz’s defense of that message was not just about military capability. It was also an effort to recast the threat as leverage in service of talks rather than as a break from them.
How are critics responding to michael waltz and the White House line?
Representative Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, pushed back in the same television hour, warning that the administration was escalating toward “devastation” in Iran. He said the country should not be fixated on conflict abroad while domestic needs remain unmet, adding that Trump seemed more obsessed with the Middle East than with American priorities.
The criticism is not confined to Capitol Hill. On the same program, the war crime question was central, and Waltz’s answer leaned on the idea of dual-use infrastructure. He rejected the accusation that the threat crossed a legal line and said the criticism was based on a misunderstanding of how military targets can be defined in wartime.
Outside Washington, the debate has also included hard language from Iranian and American voices. Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei called the continued U. S. naval blockade of Iran’s ports unlawful and criminal. Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson has also condemned the idea of striking civilian infrastructure, calling it vile and a moral crime.
What happens next in the talks with Iran?
The next step is the scheduled round of in-person negotiations in Islamabad. Waltz said key U. S. negotiators would travel there, and he initially said Vice President JD Vance would lead the delegation again. That was later clarified when Trump said Vance would not attend this round because the Secret Service was not comfortable with the notice period. A White House official later said the delegation would include Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law.
For now, the administration is trying to keep the pressure high without closing the door. The message from michael waltz is that diplomacy is active, but it is being carried forward in the shadow of a direct threat to Iran’s infrastructure. That is the scene as the talks approach: a negotiation table set beside a warning, with both sides waiting to see which message lands first.
