The clash came after President Trump announced in a Truth Social video on Feb. 28 that the United States military, in coordination with the Israel Defense Forces, had launched strikes against the Islamic Republic’s ruling regime, as reported by Western Journal. Host Kristen Welker pressed Waltz on whether the president’s actions amounted to the start of a war, framing the question in terms that echoed long-standing Democratic criticism of decisive U.S. military action in the Middle East.
“As you know, words matter, does the Trump administration — do you — describe this as a war against Iran?” Welker asked, attempting to pin down the administration’s terminology. Waltz, a combat veteran and longtime critic of Tehran’s terror apparatus, rejected the premise outright, responding, “Well, I describe it as Iran has been at war with us, as I just said.”
ATLANTIC REPORTER BEHIND DEBUNKED BRETT KAVANAUGH STORY IS BACK—AND HER NEW TARGET JUST LAWYERED UP!
Welker pushed again, asking, “So, it is a war?” in an effort to force a sound bite that could be used to portray the president as escalating conflict. Waltz fired back, “President Trump is ending it. I will leave it to the lawyers and those who deal with Congress in terms of the War Powers Act, which every administration has viewed as unconstitutional. That said, Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio has been there day after day and week after week in the recent months to appropriately brief congressional leaders.”
LABOR SECRETARY LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER RESIGNS AS WATCHDOG PROBES BOOZY TRIPS, AFFAIR CLAIMS
On Capitol Hill, efforts by Democrats to curtail American military operations against the Iranian regime failed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, underscoring bipartisan recognition of the threat posed by Tehran and its terror proxies. The defeats also signaled that, despite loud rhetoric from the left, there is limited appetite in Congress to tie the commander in chief’s hands while U.S. forces are under fire.
REP. HILLARY SCHOLTEN'S DIVORCE CONTROVERSY: IMPACT ON RE-ELECTION AND QUESTIONS OF TRANSPARENCY
Waltz underscored that for American troops and their families, the question of whether this is “war” is not an abstract legal debate but a grim reality stretching back decades. “I’ll tell you, you know who does believe, that they are being attacked? It is the soldiers that have been buried for many, many years as a result of Iranian attacks and the proxy attacks. Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis [killed] over 600 American soldiers, so, I need— we need to take a look and look at how many billions, how much time, how much treasure that administration after administration has spent dealing with this,” Waltz said.
MAINE GOVERNOR FILES TO REFUND FRAUDSTERS ANY TAXPAYER DOLLARS CUT BY TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
The human cost of Iran’s aggression was driven home again on March 1, when an Iranian strike killed six American service members at a technical operations center in Kuwait. For many conservatives, such attacks only reinforce the necessity of a strong, unapologetic response rather than the restrained posture favored by progressive foreign-policy circles.
The current campaign builds on the first Trump administration’s decision in January 2020 to eliminate Qasem Soleimani, the notorious commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Soleimani was a crucial figure in providing advanced improvised explosive device components that were used against American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, making him directly responsible for the maiming and killing of countless U.S. service members.
As the debate over terminology and congressional prerogatives continues in Washington, the underlying reality remains that Iran and its proxies have waged a long, bloody campaign against Americans and their allies. President Trump’s supporters argue that confronting that threat head-on, rather than appeasing it, is not the start of a war but a long-overdue effort to end one that Tehran began years ago.
