Chuck Rocha anchors a heated Washington Journal debate over President Trump's threats to destroy Iranian bridges and power plants by noon if no deal emerges. While mediators from Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey work to avert conflict, callers clash on whether targeting civilian infrastructure constitutes war crimes comparable to actions in Palestine or Lebanon. Critics cite the lack of congressional authorization and potential Medicare cuts, contrasting escalation with diplomatic caution amidst claims of a "death cult" leadership. Ultimately, the segment highlights deep divisions over U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the risks of unilateral military action without clear strategic goals. [Automatically generated summary]
We have a plan, because of the power of our military, where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o'clock tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding, and never to be used again.
I mean complete demolition by 12 o'clock.
And it'll happen over a period of four hours if we want it to.
We don't want that to happen.
We may even get involved with helping them rebuild their nation.
And you know what?
If that's the case, the last thing we want to do is start with power plants, which are among the most expensive things and bridges.
You saw the bridge, the bridge one.
We were very close to a deal.
And then I got a call from Mr. Witkoff, Mr. Kushner, and JD saying, I think they're breaking the deal.
I said, tell them that's okay.
Don't worry about it.
But tell them to look out their window and watch.
And within 45 minutes, I gave the order to knock out the biggest bridge.
I gave the order, knock out the biggest bridge in, I believe the Middle East, but the biggest bridge in Iran.
And within 10 minutes after I gave that order, that bridge was over.
The question is, should the U.S. escalate, should it de-escalate, or stay the course in Iran?
What do you think should happen as that 8 p.m. Eastern deadline approaches?
That's tonight.
Here's what the Iranian president just put out on X.
He says this.
More than 14 million proud Iranians have so far registered to sacrifice their lives to defend Iran.
I too have been, am, and will remain devoted to giving my life for Iran.
That's Masroud Pazashkian, the president of Iran.
This is what Axios has put out.
Trump's tipping point, destroy Iran's infrastructure or give talks a chance.
The article says that the president faces a momentous decision on a tight timeline, carry out his threat to obliterate Iran's infrastructure beginning at 8 p.m. Eastern, or push his own deadline again to give negotiations a chance.
It says that he has threatened to destroy every bridge and power plant in Iran by midnight, among other options that would have devastating consequences for ordinary Iranians and spark dangerous retaliation across the region.
Mediators from Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey are working to avert that outcome by brokering a deal or at least putting time back on the clock.
It says a senior official told Axios, quote, If the president sees a deal is coming together, he'll probably hold off, but only he and he alone makes that decision.
A defense official said they were skeptical there would be any extension this time around.
It says that this account is based on interviews with six officials and sources with direct knowledge.
Trump might be the most hawkish person in the top echelons of his administration on Iran, according to a source.
This is a quote here: The president is the most bloodthirsty like a mad dog.
Another U.S. official said, downplaying stories that Defense Secretary Hagseth or Secretary Marco Rubio were egging him on, quote, those guys sound like doves compared to the president.
That's an Axios, if you would like to see the rest of that.
Following confirmation of active rescue beacons and on the direction of the Secretary and by order of the President, a rescue operation was launched with the stated purpose of bringing both Americans home safely.
As the Secretary said several hours later on the morning after positively locating the front seater call sign Dude 44 Alpha and aware of an aggressive ongoing search by the enemy, a U.S. Central Command plan was approved by the Secretary and the President.
Shortly thereafter, a U.S. Air Force Combat Search and Rescue Task Force comprised of A-10 Warthogs in their Sandy role, and I'll describe what that is in a minute.
HC-130 Combat King 2s, HH-60 Jolly Green 2 helicopters, and Air Force Special Warfare Airmen, a package comprised of combat rescue officers and para-rescument operators, audaciously penetrated enemy territory in broad daylight to find, fix, and recover Dude 44 Alpha from behind enemy lines.
This was an incredibly dangerous mission, an incredibly dangerous undertaking, but a filled promise made to every American warfighter that you will not be left behind.
We will always come find you, and we will always bring you home.
Over the next hours, the search and rescue task force crossed the beach, entered Interranian airspace, protected by a fighter strike package, and moved into the objective area, all under fire.
En route, as some of you have seen on social media, the helicopters took gas off the C-130s and pressed onward and forward up into the objective area.
While this was ongoing and out in front of them, the Sandy flight of A-10s and other remotely piloted aircraft, drones, and other tactical aircraft were violently suppressing and engaging the enemy in a close-in gunfight to keep them away from the front seater and allow the pickup force to get into the objective area.
During this engagement, one of the Sandy aircraft, the one primarily responsible for communicating with the downed pilot, was hit by enemy fire.
This pilot continued to fight, continued the mission, and then upon exit, flew his aircraft into another country and determined that the airplane was not landable.
This was one of our A-10 Sandy aircraft.
The pilot then made the decision to eject over friendly territory and was quickly and safely recovered and is doing fine.
After picking up Dude 44 Alpha, the HH-60 Jolly Greenfight was engaged by every single person in Iran who had a small arms weapon.
And one of the aircraft, the trailing aircraft, took several hits.
So the question is: do you think we should escalate?
Do you think the president should carry through with the threats against infrastructure?
unidentified
We definitely should escalate because Iran, just this morning, I saw that they will put their life on the line, and they don't care about their people.
Sid in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, Independent Line.
You're on the air.
unidentified
No, being in the military and also having served our country for 20 years, I don't support it.
I think we do have to proceed with caution and negotiations should be on the table.
I don't think the Iranians, Iranians that support the invasion, don't really support blowing up their infrastructure so that they will be left for nothing.
I don't think that.
So I think negotiations should be on the table and every other option than completely decimating them should be considered.
Iran calls for human chains to protect power plants as Trump's deadline nears.
This is in the Associated Press that says that airstrikes pounded Tehran on Tuesday, and Iranian officials urged young people to form human chains to protect power plants hours before the expiration of U.S. President Donald Trump's latest deadline to open the Strait of Hormuz.
It says Trump has extended previous deadlines, but suggested that the one set for APM in Washington was final.
And the rhetoric on both sides reached a fever pitch, leaving Iranians on edge.
Here's Patricia, Washington, D.C., Democrat.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
I would always say that diplomacy should rule over above and beyond anything else.
All of the diplomatic relations have fallen to the wayside.
I think escalating this whole situation to the point of collective punishment where civilian infrastructure will be targeted is very, very bad.
We have seen what is going on over in Palestine, where basically all the buildings, all the infrastructure has been decimated.
And now the war is extending over into Lebanon.
We're at war here in Iran.
The Middle East is about to explode.
And what is the root cause is our country.
We're over there in the Middle East where we should be taking care of individuals here in this country.
There is a need here for health care, a need for Medicare and Medicaid.
All the money that we're spending on this unauthorized war is just not good.
We have to remember when you read what you're selling like, so we're over there causing all of this disruption.
Eventually, it could come here to America.
I wish that they would tone down all the rhetoric about blowing up the infrastructure.
The people over there need their bridges.
They need their electricity just like we do.
So I would hope and pray that a more diplomatic solution will come about because sitting there, Trump was never authorized by Congress for this war.
Mickey, let me ask you about the threats against the infrastructure being considered war crimes if you hit, for instance, a desalination plant, something that is not used for the military.
What are your thoughts on that?
Would you encourage the president to go through with that?
unidentified
Well, I don't know what war crime is in this regard.
It seems like we're in a war.
They don't have any problems blowing up people in our country or hurting our people in our country with their little cells of terrorists.
They certainly don't have any, they didn't cry at all what happened on October the 7th.
All right, Mickey, this is what military.com says about that the laws of war.
It says the United States is bound by the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which provide baseline protections for civilians and civilian objects.
It says the U.S. has not ratified Additional Protocol 1, which contains the most detailed articulation of modern targeting rules.
Despite non-ratification, the U.S. accepts the core targeting principles such as distinction, proportionality, and precautions are part of customary international law.
The Department of Defense law of war manual reflects this position and governs U.S. military practice.
As a result, U.S. obligations closely track the substance of Additional Protocol 1.
It says under U.S. law, attacks must be directed at military objectives.
The DOD defines a military objective as an object that makes an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction offers a definite military advantage.
Bridges are civilian objects by default, but can become lawful targets if they are used for military logistics or troop movement.
The key is functional use, not category.
You can read more about that at military.com if you'd like more details.
Here's Matthew in Washington, D.C., Independent Line.
Bombing Civilians and Negotiations00:06:36
unidentified
Thanks and praises for C-SPAN.
Yes, I'm a 68-year-old black man.
I ain't never seen so many dysfunctional people lead this country.
And to go to war and kill thousands of women and children for unjust causes, you're going to reap what you sow.
America has never been good since its founding, stole this land from the Indians, raped, tortured, and brutalized Africans to come here to build this country.
And this is the thanks we get.
This is the worst administration ever on the face of the earth.
And Representative Jason Crowe says this, it's a war crime to bomb schools, power plants, and bridges.
And Michael on Facebook says President Trump is on the verge of committing major war crimes if he does so.
He is no better than Putin or Netanyahu, both who are wanted in The Hague.
And Hakeem Jeffries, minority leader in the House, says Republicans are threatening to cut Medicare and Medicaid to pay for Donald Trump's reckless war of choice in the Middle East get lost.
When, Knoxville, Tennessee, Democrat, what do you think?
unidentified
Well, I'm in a state now, and I mean in a condition where I don't really know what to think about this, but I've been following closely since the very beginning of all, and I have noticed a pattern, and that pattern has been consistently to try to bully forward on issues that I think most Americans do not agree with.
I don't understand, but I do understand that there is a sort of a militancy that wants to hurt people and a lack of compassion that's withdrawing the help that people need in order to live.
I anticipated in Trump's first term when he lost that he would try to hold on to power.
I never anticipated it to be on the scale that it was.
He had it set up, really, and I know I'm starting to sound like a conspirator, but we know from the records that he did talk about military, you know, martial law and things like that at that time.
I think something like this is coming.
I think we're being overwhelmed by people who are not taking a stand.
The Roman Empire lasted, I think, 400 years.
We've lasted 250.
The amazing thing is, one of our former presidents said it only takes two things to keep this democracy afloat, and that is to be informed and to vote.
And we're losing that.
People are making a cult of things, and they're just angry about everything.
We have got to wake up.
We have got to wake up.
One man is going to bring down our democracy if we don't stiffen our spines, remember what we were taught as children about conscience and responsibility, and stop this.
And do you think that that would have, I mean, do you think that that might turn the population against the United States?
That's, you know, one of the fears being cited is that the Iranians will not support the United States if they don't have drinking water and electricity, et cetera.
unidentified
No, I think it's going to cause the whole Iranian population to go against its leaders.
Here's Robert in Caspian, Michigan, Independent Line.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
This is Robert from the fascist town of Caspian, Michigan.
My business here, I want to state something that's kind of factual too.
These negotiations that Trump was doing with Iranians, the three people that were negotiating with him, one of them was his son-in-law, I guess.
But it wasn't seemed to be much of a negotiating team like it was with other world leaders.
And the world leaders that Trump was negotiating with, he negotiated personally with Putin.
He negotiated personally with North Korea.
He negotiated personally with a few other world leaders.
But why didn't he negotiate personally with Iran's leader?
You know, at least for picture purposes, like he did, you know, for photo ops, I guess.
But anyway, I don't think it's right for him to be bombing civilians.
I don't think he shouldn't be, you know, and my theory too, I think we're trapped over there in that Gulf.
If we go to leave with all our ships and that, they're going to bomb the heck out of us when we try to cross the Homo Straits, or that's what you want to call it.
But, you know, I mean, it looks like we could be trapped over there.
They could bomb us as we try to leave, where we try to go through the straits.
You know, if we start taking all of our ships out of there, from, you know, they're over in that Gulf with the UAE, I believe, the United Emirates and Saudi Arabia and all the rest of them.
If we're going to leave, we've got to leave through the straits, don't we?
I don't understand how people can follow a cult, the cult of this leader that talks like the worst teenager.
This is our leader, and we expect for the world, the leader of the world, supposedly, that ignorantly just cannot understand that diplomacy that he talks about the plan,
he talks about President Obama's plan for peace.
We're talking about nuclear what is happening.
I'm 75 years old.
Never in my wildest dreams did I think the peace movement, the world peace movement.
How much money and how much resources do we keep giving?