Monday, April 20, 2026

I Take My History Straight: The Pitfalls of Weaponizing the Past

 I Take My History Straight: 

The Pitfalls of Weaponizing the Past

Weaponized history distorts truth—turning grievance or nostalgia into a political tool that obscures reality and impedes progress.

The tendency to weaponize the past to attain one’s aims is neither a novel nor a parochial vice. Yet claiming victimhood and/or glorifying the past to empower one’s political objectives is tragically more prevalent than ever.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has made avenging a “century of humiliation” both a sword and a shield to destroy its opponents and perpetuate its totalitarian rule. The CCP does not deign to mention its less-than-stellar role in avoiding combat with the invading Japanese army, while letting the Kuomintang exhaust itself defending China. Nor does the regime allow its more recent sins, such as Mao’s Great Famine or the Tiananmen Square massacre, to be discussed. No, the CCP claims it is best to look ahead at how it is building a glorious future—at least for the CCP.

Equally, Mr. Putin and his siloviki cronies have harkened back to the “Great Patriotic War” in their propaganda to justify invading Ukraine, arguing they are engaged in de-Nazification and pushing back against the West, in particular the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Of course, the Kremlin is engaged in the very territorial conquest Nazi Germany attempted and has even incorporated a “Sudetenland Germans” riff regarding ethnic Russians living in Ukraine as yet another bogus justification for their waging aggressive war for territorial expansion. Within Russia, the regime harkens back to the “glories” of imperial Russia and, yes, the Soviet Union.

Regrettably, as noted, such weaponization of the past is not limited to America’s enemies. It is a common practice here at home, engaged in by both the Left and the Right sides of the political spectrum.

In weaponizing the past, the American Left hopes to paint our republic’s past sins with a broad brush to turn the freest and most prosperous nation in human history into an irredeemably racist, colonial, and inequitable nation. Doing so, the Left wants the public to cease clinging to the myth of American exceptionalism and embrace the Left’s purported path for progress—socialism with an intersectional priority empowering and institutionalizing preferences for some citizens at the expense of others.

On its part, the Right weaponizes the past by glossing over and glorifying it, attempting to minimize and erase its sins. It is no mystery why the inherently conservative Right would want to preserve the past; however, a true conservative movement seeks to conserve and build upon what is beneficial from the past while, as ably as fallible humans can, ending harmful practices. To pretend the past is beyond reproach is to abnegate the responsibility to learn from and improve upon it.

In sum, then, both sides of the American political spectrum have crafted strawman arguments: America is evil versus America is perfect. Both false arguments hinder our country’s ability to create a more perfect union and to counter our nation’s enemies. (Importantly, our Founders understood imperfectible human beings could not create utopia on earth; hence, the phrase “moreperfect,” because America, indeed, no nation, can ever be perfect.)

There are patent pitfalls in either demonizing or aggrandizing the past. Most immediately, both distort the baseline necessary for measuring real societal progress. Understanding where our nation began, how it has evolved, and how it has continually recalibrated the inherent tension between liberty and equality is essential to guiding each generation of Americans in its civic duty to forge a more perfect republic. Again, it is a duty that will never be completed. But as the rabbinical teaching reminds us, “The day is short; the task is great. You are not required to complete the task, yet you are not free to withdraw from it.” If Americans come to believe the republic must be scrapped or is optimal as is, they will feel no impetus to work for its betterment.

In performing our task, it is equally critical not to diminish the courage and determination of our predecessors who did help to forge a more perfect union—such as abolitionists, civil rights workers, and suffragettes. Dismissing their heroic work in achieving significant societal advances not only demeans their achievements; it also serves to sap the resolve of today’s Americans to emulate their inspiring examples and deeds and perform our own duty to forge a more perfect union.

By continuing this consensual recalibration of liberty and equality—undertaken by sovereign citizens exercising our God-given rights within our constitutionally prescribed order of liberty—we constitute an existential threat to our nation’s enemies, for we continue to inspire the world with what free people can achieve.

That is why I take my history straight and urge all other Americans to do the same. The People’s Republic of China and Putin’s Russia are autocracies that manipulate and weaponize the past to justify their unconscionable aims and obscure their abuses, actions, and existence. The truth about these regimes’ past and present will erode the lies propping up their rule and help to liberate their people, even as it continues to protect and inspire our own.


♦️𝐖³𝐏 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝


 


W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time. 

 

VIDEO: USS Spruance Lights Up Iranian Blockade Runner in a Formidable Demonstration of FAFO


RedState 

Hours ago, the USS Spruance, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, fired on and disabled the Iranian-flagged container ship M/V Touska. The Touska was en route from Port Klang, Malaysia, destined for Chabahar, Iran. The ship encountered the U.S. Navy blockade line in the Arabian Sea and ill-advisedly attempted to bull its way through. The captain probably hoped to impress his Islamic Revolution masters with his contempt for the kufar navy that, according to leftists in the West, is illegally blockading Iran. Over a six-hour period, the ship received multiple warnings to turn around and refused them all.

As my colleague Nickarama pointed out, this was not a great evolutionary decision: Iranian Cargo Ship Tries to Get Past the U.S. Blockade - Trump: It 'Did Not Go Well for Them'. Not only was the ship ordered to stop, but it was also under U.S. Treasury sanctions for its links to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

U.S. Central Command has now released video of the warnings given to the Touska and the actual engagement.

The gun used is the Mark 45, a 5-inch, 62-caliber gun (that means the barrel is 62 times the bore diameter). Each shell fired weighs about 68 pounds and travels at 2,500 feet per second. Three of them, tearing through the engine room, undoubtedly cooled the captain's jets even if the engine remained operational.

Marines from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (Up to 2,500 Marines Are Headed to the Persian Gulf As Iranian Blockade of Hormuz Takes Center Stage) boarded the Touska and are now in control of it. Since the blockade was announced (see CENTCOM Starts the Iranian Blockade Monday - Here Are the Rules and What to Look For), the U. S. Navy has ordered 25 ships to turn around. This was the first time our Navy has been challenged, and I'm willing to bet it will be the last. Someone owns that ship, and the odds of them retrieving it or getting an insurance payout are about zero.

President Trump has ordered U.S. negotiators to fly to Islamabad Monday (US Negotiators Head Back to Islamabad, but the Iranians May Not Be There), for their part, the Iranians have said they will not be there unless President Trump removes the blockade. This looks like a fairly emphatic "No!" in response to that demand. If the Iranians persist in their demand, the war will resume by Thursday morning (Don't Trust *And* Verify: US Amb. Waltz Says Iran Can Be Assured of 1 Thing Ahead of Any Nukes Agreement). Their other option is a massive climb-down from their high horse and an admission that they don't have a way to enforce any of their demands.


Trump's Brilliant Blockade Chess Move Isn't Only About Iran


It is considerable. From decimating its military to putting Iran in an economic vise with the blockade on ships going in and out of its ports. The U.S. is also reportedly considering seizing Iranian ships elsewhere in the world. They appeared to be talking about ships that are violating sanctions. On top of that, there's "Operation Economic Fury," going after the assets of the Iranian regime in Gulf state banks. 

That is a prodigious squeeze play. Now, given the time, the U.S. could just sit and blockade them into submission because the regime is losing $435 million a day, something that they cannot sustain. That could itself topple the regime. 

But there's someone else Trump has put a hold on in this, and it's been fascinating to watch this all play out from the Panama Canal and Venezuela to now: that's China. They're over the barrel too, because of the blockade on Iran.

China is the biggest purchaser of Iranian oil, buying 90 percent of its supply. As Stephen Mosher of the NY Post opines, they can supply the mullahs with more weapons. There are reports of them trying to give them man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), which are shoulder-fired missiles. Trump warned Xi against it and threatened more tariffs. 

But if China assists Iran in the fight, it only keeps the Strait in a blockade, putting China's oil supply in trouble. And it's not just their Iranian oil that is in trouble; the situation could continue to put all the oil it gets from the Gulf - about 50 percent - in jeopardy. 

Yet, Iran continues to play games, drags this out, and keeps going back on what it says. If Iran keeps that up and the U.S. goes back to bombing Iran, it could take the regime out as an ally of China permanently. 

It pretty much leaves China with only one smart play: to do what they can to push Iran to the table to get a deal, so that they can salvage something. And Xi Jinping is nothing if not smart and practical, unlike the Iranian regime, which is chock-full of IRGC lunatic nutters who keep making the wrong choices. 

Venezuela used to ship 80 percent of its oil to China. Now that's cut off, and it's largely going to the U.S. 

So, guess where China has been forced to go for its oil? Mosher has the answer, in the piece linked above:

The truth is, Xi has no choice but to give Trump a hug, since the Donald has him in an energy chokehold.

Trump is taking full advantage of one of the key asymmetries in the US-China contest: The US is now the largest energy producer in the world, while China is still heavily dependent upon imports. 

And Trump is now playing this energy card to full advantage. Denied cheap Iranian crude, China has been forced to ramp up its purchases of American oil, paying the full market price... in dollars. 

The big picture is this: Thanks to Trump’s actions, China’s proxies in the Middle East and around the world are being picked off one by one, and its Belt and Road Initiative is falling on hard times. Trump is executing a masterclass in strategic isolation of America’s chief geopolitical adversary in real time. It’s a beautiful thing to watch.

As we reported, Iran's mischief in the Strait has led to people trying to increase the alternatives so that this doesn't continue to be a problem. Then, something Iran likely didn't anticipate happened: an increase in people running to the U.S. to fill up, as U.S. oil exports increased and hit a record in March.

It gives us more control and, consequently, power. Then, too, other countries don't have to rely upon the questionable actions of Iran in the Strait. 

I'm thinking there are going to be some interesting discussions when Trump finally meets with Xi.


Conrad Black: Trump humiliated Iran in recent discussions

 


Conrad Black claims Trump has humiliated Iran in recent discussions. The market on Trump agreeing to Iranian oil sanction relief in April sits at 50.5% YES, up from 28% a week ago.

Market reaction

The 8-point rise suggests traders are repricing the likelihood of Trump conceding to Iran’s demands, though the market still implies a roughly one-in-three chance. The Trump’s agreement to Iranian demands market shows a 15% rise in expected move percentage tied to this news.

Trading activity

The market has seen $5,592 in USDC traded over the last 24 hours, with a $198 cost to move the price by 5 points. That cost figure means single large orders can move the price meaningfully. The largest move was a 2-point drop at 12:19 PM, from 36% to 34%, before bouncing back.

Why it matters

Black’s statement matters because it could reinforce trader expectations that the US will maintain its hard stance. With a ceasefire currently in place and Iran having reopened the Strait of Hormuz, any shift in US policy would directly affect this market. At 36¢, a YES share pays $1 if Trump agrees to Iranian demands by April, a nearly 2.8x return. The bet comes down to whether Trump holds his current position.

What to watch

Watch for White House announcements or Trump social media posts that signal any change in stance. Upcoming statements from Trump’s administration and any shifts in CENTCOM’s operational posture are the most likely catalysts.

https://cryptobriefing.com/conrad-black-trump-humiliated-iran-in-recent-discussions/

Conrad Black - Hostility to Trump Bars Global Recognition of Israeli-American Military Defeat of Iran

 The desperate fishtailing of the Iranian government factions is still being construed by President Trump’s opponents as a masterpiece of Iranian tactical and diplomatic maneuver while the great and boastful American monster lurches ineffectually about the stage. Blind and terminal hatred of Mr. Trump as a public

personality, in America and some other countries, has so far largely prevented recognition of the current Iran war as the overwhelming and seismic triumph of the United States and Israel that it is. It is the swiftest military defeat of a country since the German occupation of Denmark in less than six hours in 1940.

There have been few episodes in international relations more comical in recent years than Iran preening itself on having apparently struck the Achilles’ heel of the West in the Strait of Hormuz, and then accusing America of ”piracy” for blockading Iran. The last such absurd accusation that comes to mind was Hitler’s denunciation of Stalin as “a cold-hearted blackmailer” in 1945. He may have been, but it was hardly Hitler’s place to complain about it.

It is easy to forget the sequence: Iran relaunched its nuclear weapons program after the Americans had destroyed it with deep penetration bombs last summer. The United States and Israel resumed air war on Iran to destroy its military capacity completely. The Iranians attacked the unoffending Gulf oil-producing states and claimed to shut the Strait of Hormuz to create an oil crisis that would inconvenience the Americans and cause extreme economic damage to oil-importing countries. The Americans promised complete destruction of Iranian infrastructure if Iran did not end its purported closure of the Hormuz Strait. It was agreed that there would be high-level talks between Iran and America in Pakistan, a two-week cease-fire was agreed, and Iran promised to open the strait. The talks failed after one day, Iran’s claim to close the strait continued, as did the cease-fire, and the United States announced the blockade of Iranian ports ending Iranian oil exports. Iran announced the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, America announced the continuation of its blockade of Iran, and Iran announced the resumption of the closing of the Strait after one day.

America continues the blockade of Iran which costs that country over $400 million a day, and has warned that if there is any violation of the cease-fire by Iran, the United States and Israel will destroy Iran’s electricity supply, oil refining capacity, and all of its major bridges. This is generally known in American military circles as “bridge and powerplant day,” when all of those are destroyed and Iran involuntarily retreats into an atomized society with no electricity and little communication between its thousands of communities.

It is a little like what President Eisenhower described as “a Gilbert and Sullivan war” when Communist China’s premier, Chou En-lai, announced in 1958 that Beijing would bombard the tiny Free Chinese islands in the Formosa Strait, Quemoy and Matsu, every other day. America and Israel have destroyed 90 percent of Iran’s ability to fire conventional missiles against other countries and all of its naval vessels above approximately 40 feet in length and its entire air defenses, and have closed its airspace and its ports.

America has suffered eight combat fatalities plus a noncombat air crash in which five of their personnel died, and Israel has suffered 35 deaths from Iran missile attacks. Despite the almost complete destruction of their armed forces and heavy damage to their administrative and police apparatus and their defense related industries, Iran has lost a little over 3,000 people.

We are almost back to the age of chivalry where casualties were confined to military personnel and very few of those. The world’s principal terrorism-supporting state can no longer afford to support terrorism. Historians will consider it inconceivable that prevailing press coverage and widespread world opinion have largely endorsed the delusion that because the government of Iran still functions, erratically and in factions, it has won this war: the Islamic Republic’s mythology that if it survives at all, it wins.

This is a fallacy. It has lost and the regime can be eliminated entirely either by an indefinite air and maritime blockade or by the next phase of unanswerable aerial attacks: bridge and powerplant days. This war has been so one-sided, syncopated, and swift, and with minimal civilian casualties so that there is very little film footage to permit the usual claims of war crimes and genocide, that there is an unreality about it.

The war on terrorism has almost been won. The right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, albeit with continuing uncertainty about its exact borders, has been accepted by everyone except the decapitated and fragmented regime in Tehran, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime has miraculously revived. Iran cannot possibly continue to pretend to be fighting a war for more than a few more weeks. After that there will be the first serious opportunity for peaceful local self-government in the Middle East in all of its history going back to the Old Testament. The peculiar antagonism of some people to Mr. Trump is just a passing personality maladjustment. They will get over it, in 

https://www.newenglishreview.org/hostility-to-trump-bars-global-recognition-of-israeli-american-military-defeat-of-iran/

Coalition of the Useless


The four leading European states are planning 

a naval mission to secure the Strait of Hormuz.


The four leading European states are planning a naval mission to secure the Strait of Hormuz. This much is clear: the hot phase of the conflict appears to be over, and the key players have already made their moves.

The loss of Europe’s geopolitical power is the defining decline narrative of our time. As Europeans, we are condemned to become unwilling witnesses of continental decay. And in no field of politics does the toxic amalgam of eco-socialism, elite arrogance, and rampant infantilism become more visible than at the level of the European Union.

What we are witnessing in Brussels and the leading capitals of the EU are desperate attempts at coordinated foreign policy -- and the realization that the cooperation of powerless individual entities does not necessarily lead to better outcomes than bilateral cooperation.

That this realization must have reached the highest circles of European politics could be observed at the end of this week. The four “big ones” -- Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy -- called for a maritime alliance and the protection of the Strait of Hormuz.

Fifty additional states -- according to the initiators of this rather peculiar political camouflage -- are expected to join the European alliance. Leadership claims are naturally being made by the former maritime powers Britain and France, above all France, whose aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle may stand as the last remaining symbol of Europe’s great naval tradition at the center of these activities -- if one can even approach the Persian Gulf at all.

The situation remains fragile: the currently stable ceasefire ends on Wednesday. And negotiations between the United States, Israel, and Iran are entering their final phase. From a European perspective, our assumptions are once again confirmed: the EU and its slowly re-approaching partner the United Kingdom are staging a political cabaret. First came the wait-and-see approach until Americans and Israel had militarily decided the situation. Meanwhile, some NATO members refused cooperation with the United States, only to now, after everything has been decided, attempt to place themselves at the forefront of political forces seeking to guarantee the security of the Strait of Hormuz.

Through constant media overdrive, Starmer, Macron, Meloni, and Merz present themselves as the decision-makers of the moment -- it is their harvest time, collecting cheap public dividends. But is that really the case? Do they seriously believe that the majority of Europeans are not fully aware of what is happening? That European power is essentially the product of media magic -- permanent propaganda wrapped in moral excess? A shadow of past greatness, reduced to virtual impotence, ultimately dissolving into the very media theatre that we, as embarrassed Europeans, are forced to endure every day.

The German contribution to the mission, as announced by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, is predictably modest: mine countermeasure vessels (eight available), one supply ship, and two P-8 Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft. No frigates -- they are tied up in a NATO deployment in the North Atlantic. Germany does have a defense budget that exceeds all other Europeans by billions, yet even this money appears to vanish into the nirvana of bureaucracy and into the coffers of defense contractors, who are popping champagne corks thanks to the government’s debt-driven spending spree amid multiple conflict scenarios.

So much for the possible German contribution. But as said: whether a military deployment will actually take place remains uncertain. Europe is already feeling the consequences of its energy dependency and its eco-socialist policy course, which hit like an icy wind. Yet this does not change the fact that policymakers continue to refuse to acknowledge the geopolitical vacuum and instead begin trying to piece together diplomatically what they have shattered in recent years -- especially in relations with the United States and Russia.

From poker we know: those who repeatedly bluff at the same table with empty hands and are exposed will be dismantled in future rounds. A U.S. withdrawal from NATO would likely also mean a full retreat from the Ukraine conflict. This move would expose both Europe’s fragile finances and its nonexistent security infrastructure. The EU faces economic and geopolitical problems it cannot manage alone.

From a European perspective, not many options remain. To those advocating closer alignment with China: China sees Europe primarily as a dumping ground for surplus production from its politically driven export sector. Europe could be pressured at any time via export restrictions on rare earths or microchips. This is not a viable option.

Reintegration of Russia into a broader Eurasian cooperation would be a natural and obvious element. The attempt to force regime change in Moscow has failed. The idea, attributed to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, of fragmenting Russia into ethnic components in order to maintain leverage and control access to raw materials and energy resources remains a fantasy of hysterical Europeans trapped in their globalist worldview.

The United States remains, with its increasingly despised president in Europe, Donald Trump. He creates facts and destroys European dream worlds. And he executes a political program that allows the United States to dominate the Western Hemisphere over the long term. That the Americans project their power in the world’s maritime choke points -- the Panama Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, and, following the agreement with Indonesia, the Strait of Malacca – shows that Washington is preparing for the power struggle with China.

Should Europeans believe that the two giants will not ultimately reach an understanding, they are likely mistaken. The United States and China are working at high speed to consolidate their spheres of influence, reorganizing financial systems and commodity markets in line with their specific industrial needs. Moreover, the costs of an escalating conflict between the two would be too high. It is therefore logical to divide the world into corresponding spheres of power and shift the costs onto others.

For Europeans, it becomes a burden that the unavoidable has happened: access to energy and its distribution have once again become instruments of power. Oil and gas dominate -- the so-called “declared dead” are living longer than ever. And Europe’s dependency is striking: up to 60 percent of primary energy demand must be imported.

Those who fail to conclude from this simple observation that the time has come for diplomacy and fair negotiations with partners -- and that the era of lecturing the world with a moral finger in order to enforce a Net Zero climate regime is over – have simply been overtaken by reality.

Brussels’ strategy to impose a European climate regime on the world failed the moment Donald Trump buried the European climate policy anchored by his predecessor Barack Obama. The fact that politicians such as Friedrich Merz, Lars Klingbeil, and Ursula von der Leyen continue to cling to climate doctrine, CO2 trading, and the transformation agenda is tragic for Europe. Our economies are now bleeding out until economic reality -- higher energy prices, rising unemployment, and the emerging sovereign debt crisis -- forces a political shift.


U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz Discusses Ongoing Objectives with Current Status of Iran


U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz appears on CBS Face the Nation to discuss the difficulty of negotiating with Iran, a regime based on fanatical religious zealotry and control.  The video and transcript are below:



[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Imtiaz Tyab reporting from Dubai. We turn now to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, who joins us this morning from New York. Welcome back to Face The Nation, ambassador.

AMBASSADOR MIKE WALTZ: Thank you, good to be with you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So the President said Iran broke the ceasefire, but he is still offering them a deal. Is this a presentation of terms, or should we expect an actual, prolonged negotiation?

MIKE WALTZ: Well, I think this will be a continuation of the terms that the vice president offered a week ago. And look, we have to take a step back here in that – President Trump, the US Navy is controlling what is coming out of the straits. We’ve had the highest level engagement in the history of the Iranian regime, with the vice president leading. We have historic ceasefire talks going on between the Israelis and the Lebanese. The markets are up. Oil prices are relatively stable. The Iranian economy is devastated, and they’ve never been, I can tell you here at the United Nations, they’ve never been more diplomatically isolated. So Iran does not have the cards, and we are confident they will come to the table and finally give up their obsession with having a nuclear weapon.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Iran has not yet announced that it’s sending a delegation to Islamabad. I know there’s this back and forth all morning long about whether the vice president would be leading it or not. CBS, as you just heard, is reporting he will be but why is it important that he be there in person? Is it because Iran has refused to send anyone with decision making authority, unless he is there?

MIKE WALTZ: Well, you’ve seen the chaos, I mean that you just pointed to on the Iranian side. The last 48 hours, you have their foreign minister announcing that they’re going to stop attacking shipping. Then you have the IRGC saying that they will and then doing so, as President Trump pointed out, an absolute violation. So the Iranian side is in a bit of chaos. This is absolutely due to the devastating strikes on their leadership. But I think the vice president leading shows the level of engagement from the US side that we are absolutely serious. And I for one, thank God for future generations that we are arresting a problem before it’s too late. We’re not waiting until the US has no options —

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well —

MIKE WALTZ: and Iran has some kind of breakout, which would lead to a nuclear breakout all over the Middle East.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me follow up on what you just said, though, because that’s important, the Iranian side is in chaos. So how do you know you’re negotiating with the right person? It’s been reported, The Institute for the Study of War says that the IRGC Commander General the Vahidi has secured control over the negotiations and the military within the past 48 hours. Does that mean Foreign Minister Araghchi is not the person to be sitting across the table from? Who’s in charge?

MIKE WALTZ: Well, look – again the Iranian regime, we’ve put them in chaos, but at the same time, we are never going to take an approach of trust. Any deal that comes out of this will have to absolutely be verifiable and be enforceable. I can tell you, from sitting in my seat at the UN we’ve been in extensive discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, which would have ostensibly a key role in ensuring Iran lives up to any deal that it signs to, this – signs up to, there is no trust on this side. There is verified and enforceable provisions that are that are on the table from the US to ensure they never have a nuke.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, that’s important in terms of enforcement. Does that mean if you actually get to a negotiated deal, and the UN’s nuclear watchdog would be very much in those details of going in and perhaps securing that enriched uranium. Does this mean you’re going to put a deal for approval before the United Nations? Is it going to be codified like that?

MIKE WALTZ: Well, I’ll tell you, there are dozens and dozens of resolutions over the years, not just the United States, the entire world, saying Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

MIKE WALTZ: We had snap back provisions that are in place now for global sanctions and that Iran cannot enrich so anything that would would change those resolutions would then need to come back before but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Let’s see if the Iranians actually sign up to a very reasonable offer that is sitting on the table from the United States —

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah —

MIKE WALTZ: which is an off ramp from them, and also will ensure the region, the United States, Europe and the world, is never threatened by a regime with its hand on a nuclear button.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, so, but back to the point of who’s in charge. President Trump says he hopes they take the deal, that was the post this morning. But on Friday afternoon, he spoke to my colleague, Weijia Jiang, and he gave us an incredibly optimistic read. He said Iran had quote, agreed to everything, including to stop enriching uranium forever and to stop backs – backing all proxy groups like Hezbollah. He made it sound like it’s all been sorted out. So which is it? Was there an agreement with certain parts of the Iranian government, but now there are others in charge, or was he just, you know, I don’t know, speculating about something he hopes comes true?

MIKE WALTZ: Margaret, anybody who has dealt with the Iranians will tell you it is often two steps forward, three steps back. They’re incredibly slippery. They can’t be trusted. They cheated over the years, which is one of the reasons that President Trump withdrew us from the JCPOA. They were hiding sites. They were hiding capabilities, and this is why he made the bold decision —

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yep —

MIKE WALTZ: last year in operation midnight hammer, to just end it once and for all. And again, we have to take the perspective that we’re not waiting. We’re not trusting. We are reducing their capabilities. Their military is in shambles. Their missile program is in shambles, and now, hopefully diplomatically, they will do it the easy way, rather than the hard way, of finally giving up on this illegal ambition.

MARGARET BRENNAN: The Defense Intelligence Agency told Congress this past week, Iran has thousands of missiles and one way attack drones that can still threaten the United States. So there’s still a threat in certain ways. General Caine said on Thursday, the US is going to pursue Iranian flagged vessels or any vessel providing support, including those carrying Iranian oil. Beijing is the top customer. Are you going to start boarding vessels headed to to China? When do these operations begin?

MIKE WALTZ: Well, I’m not going to give – get into operational timelines, but I’ll tell you all options are on the table. The President is prepared to escalate, to de-escalate, he means it. When he said nothing that benefits Iran is coming out of the strait. And then on top of that, Secretary Bessent announced operation economic fury, where we are prepared to put secondary sanctions on banks who are transacting in illegal Iranian oil dollars. So we are truly putting maximum pressure on every aspect of the Iranian economy, and at some point they are going to see some level of common sense and pragmatism and say enough is enough with this nuclear obsession.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that the first step before you go back to combat? Because President Trump was talking about bombing power plants. Are the sanctions and the seizing of vessels —

MIKE WALTZ: Well, we’ve taken —

MARGARET BRENNAN: step one?

Mike Waltz: Well we’ve taken, you know, again, I’m not going to publicly sequence the steps, but the blockade was, was a tremendous step and has been tremendously effective, with dozens of ships turned around. Others that are already out on the water, our Pacific Command is prepared to interdict. We’re going after the banks. We’re going after this shadow fleet, one of which was run by a relative of Khamenei. So we are taking a number of steps. We’re even looking – our acting attorney general has made it very clear, he is going to start aggressively prosecuting, our threat finance unit is going —

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah —

MIKE WALTZ: after their illegal dollars. So this is a whole of government, full on press. I hope we don’t have to go back to a military option but President Trump’s made it very clear. And by the way, bridges, power plants that are run by the IRGC, which runs the entire military, are absolute legitimate military targets, not only now, but have been historically. That is a false, fake and ridiculous notion that this is some type of war crime.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we’ll talk about that, and we’ll see if that happens. But Germany and other allies have said they will help the United States with that navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, eventually, once combat ends, but they said they need cover. They need an international mandate at the United Nations. Will Russia and China get on board? Are you trying to do that at the UN?

MIKE WALTZ: Well, as our Gulf Arab allies made it very clear at the UN, I guess that would be nice to have after the conflict, but they need help and are ready to take action now, particularly Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, we had a historic resolution to the UN with 135 —

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah —

MIKE WALTZ: nations condemning Iran for its attacks on civilian infrastructure, on resorts, civilian airports, ports, shipping. That was truly tremendous. It’s disappointing the Russians and Chinese chose to side with Iran rather than our Gulf Arab allies —

(CROSSTALK BEGINS)

MARGARET BRENNAN: And you still lifted sanctions on Russia.

(CROSSTALK ENDS)

MIKE WALTZ: and freedom of navigation, but you’re going to see – yeah, you’re going to see continued action this coming week. The entire world is united that you – that a country cannot hold an international waterway and cannot hold the world’s economies hostage because it has a conflict with another country. You don’t see that in the Straits of Gibraltar, the Bering Strait, the Straits of Malacca, or any other international waterway. Iran is absolutely in the wrong here from a legal, diplomatic and economic standpoint.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about Lebanon. President Trump posted Friday that quote, Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are prohibited from doing so by the USA. Enough is enough. How is the US prohibiting ally Israel from bombing in Lebanon? And what is the United States doing to confiscate weapons from Hezbollah like, how are you helping the Lebanese military do that?

MIKE WALTZ: Well to answer your last question, first, the US contributed over $250 million to the Lebanese Armed Forces. This is a tremendous historic opportunity for Lebanon, the Lebanese government led by President Aoun, a former general, the head of the Lebanese Armed Forces, to take their country back. Finally, with Iran on its back foot and militarily devastated, with Syria —

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yep.

MIKE WALTZ: in a much better place, with the fall of the Assad regime and the effective diplomacy that we’ve had there, and from the pager and beeper operation to now, Hezbollah has never been in a worse place. This is a true moment, and it was a real honor for me to be at the opening of the —

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.

MIKE WALTZ: first Israel – Israel Lebanon talks, first ever —

MARGARET BRENNAN: How are you going to prohibit Israel from bombing?

MIKE WALTZ: in modern history. So, we have – look, but Maragaret, we have diplomacy on the march in a number of places —

MARGARET BRENNAN: Uh-huh.

MIKE WALTZ: Backed, of course, by military strength —

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.

MIKE WALTZ: but we have to take a moment to understand the magnitude of what’s going on.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador Waltz, we will be watching to see what happens in the coming days. Thank you for your time. This morning, Face the Nation will be back in a minute. Stay with us.

{END TRANSCRIPT}