NEED TO KNOW

• Waltz says bombing Iranian bridges, power plants is not a war crime
• He cited World War II bombing campaigns as legal precedent
• Rep. Khanna and Pope Leo XIV publicly dispute the administration's reading

WASHINGTON (TDR) — U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz on Sunday rejected war crimes accusations over President Trump's threat to destroy every bridge and power plant in Iran, calling the criticism "irresponsible and just flat wrong."

Q: "Is it even safe to trespass the Strait of Hormuz?"

Mike Waltz: "Well, we're going to make it safe." pic.twitter.com/Y3UEmEbudx

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) April 19, 2026

The big picture: Waltz went on ABC's This Week to pre-empt the legal and moral backlash before a single strike has been ordered.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

• His appearance with Jonathan Karl followed Trump's Sunday Truth Social threat
• The administration now faces open criticism from a U.S. congressman and the Vatican
• Waltz framed the defense around dual-use infrastructure and historical precedent

Why it matters: The White House is building a legal argument for civilian-infrastructure strikes in real time — a posture shift with consequences that outlast any one war.

• Iran's grid powers hospitals, water desalination, and 90 million civilians
• Future adversaries will cite whatever standard the U.S. sets this week

Driving the news: Waltz delivered the administration's legal framework with unusual specificity for a Sunday show, and Karl pressed him on the gap between "military infrastructure" and "every bridge."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

• Waltz, U.N. Ambassador — "We could take that infrastructure out relatively easily. The Iranian air defenses have been absolutely decimated."
• He invoked World War II bombing as legal precedent
• Waltz said the IRGC deliberately hides military assets in schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods

What they're saying: The pushback on the same Sunday broadcast came from inside Waltz's own political lane, not just from abroad.

• Waltz — "Attacking, destroying infrastructure that has clearly and historically been used for dual military purposes is not a war crime."
• Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. — "You have the pope lecturing America about possible war crimes. You have the president threatening to destroy all power plants. I didn't think we would ever get to that point."
• U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres previously said energy-infrastructure strikes "could constitute a war crime"

Yes, but: The WWII analogy Waltz reached for cuts both directions when examined closely.

• Allied area-bombing of civilian infrastructure in Dresden and Tokyo is still debated by military historians and legal scholars as a precedent
• The 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, drafted afterward, explicitly tightened rules against civilian-infrastructure targeting

Between the lines: Waltz's appearance served a purpose beyond legal argument — it was a signal to Tehran before Monday's Islamabad talks.

• Announcing "all options on the table" on national TV is a negotiating move, not just a defense brief
• The administration chose a UN ambassador — not the Defense Secretary — to make the war-crimes case, keeping the argument in diplomatic rather than military framing

What's next:

• Witkoff and Kushner arrive in Islamabad Monday evening
• Ceasefire expires Wednesday; Trump has said meetings begin Tuesday
• Senate Foreign Relations testimony from Waltz remains on the record as the administration's fullest public doctrine

If "every bridge and every power plant" is defensible under the laws of armed conflict, what targets would not be?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from ABC News "This Week" transcript, ABC News, CBS News, and Fox News.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10