Washington Journal Open Phones features callers debating President Trump's threats to decimate Iranian infrastructure by 8 p.m. Eastern if a deal fails, contrasting his claims of American genius aiding reconstruction with accusations of war crimes and Geneva Convention violations. While some defend escalation against a "death cult" regime, others cite Senator Mark Kelly and Congressman Raja Krishna Murthy regarding the illegality of targeting civilians, noting the lack of Congressional authorization and fears that Project 2025-aligned leaders are running rogue without guardrails. Ultimately, the segment highlights deep divisions over whether such threats represent prudent defense or a reckless betrayal of American values and international law. [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 wanted 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 went.
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.
I cannot support the Democrat Party because 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.
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 reap what you sow in life.
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.
So let's say 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 could read more about that at military.com if you'd like more details.
Here's Matthew in Washington, D.C., Independent Line.
Law of War Manual Targets00:15:25
unidentified
Thanks and praises for C-SPLAN.
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 that 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're going 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?
All right, and let's hear from Mustafa in Philadelphia, Republican.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
From my perspective, I believe the United States should be taking a stronger stance with Iran when necessary.
History has shown that weakness can sometimes invite more aggression.
So I think clear resolve and determinance are important for maintaining stability and protecting our interests.
That said, I also believe any escalation should be measured and responsible with the goal of preventing a larger conflict and keeping Americans and innocent people everywhere safe.
Christina in DeCoin, Illinois, Democrat, you're on the air.
unidentified
Good morning.
I believe this has gotten really out of hand.
I mean, in the beginning, the first words were that we have to, of the president, were that we have to go over and protect the protesters from the evil regime.
And now we're wanting to bomb women and children.
Things like that just make you angrier.
If someone came to Duquesne, my hometown, Little Bitty Town in southern Illinois, if they came in here and started killing women and children, whether we believed that they were right or wrong, we would become angry, and then it would turn us into terrorist combatants.
We would fight back because they had done something wrong.
I do not understand why the word diplomacy has seemed to have vanished from our vocabulary.
I just think this is one of the worst things.
I mean, he is the absolute least, you know, diplomic, diplomatic person I think I've ever seen in my life.
And I am frightened.
I have friends that work here in DuCoin that are from Yemen, which is a constitutional republic hanging out down there underneath Saudi Arabia.
One side is the Red Sea.
The other side is United Arab Emirates.
The other side, the bottom side, is the Gulf of Oman.
They just went over and they're not in this.
They just went over and got their parents out and took them to Malaysia.
And so when Christina, when you said you're afraid, what are you afraid of?
Do you think that there could be attacks here in the United States?
unidentified
I'm afraid that it's going to create more selves.
People who normally would not be combatant will look at us as thinking all of us are against all Muslims.
And all of us are, you know, because if you boil it down to it, most people feel this is a holy war and that they, well, I think it's also a war for oil and power and, you know, places to build new Trump towers.
Trump's leadership throughout this war has been utterly disastrous.
I mean, I think the war was a bad idea in the first place, but he's done absolutely everything to alienate our allies, alienate our partners, drive people away from us.
He's bounced all over the place on what the goal of the war was.
He set these deadlines and reset the deadlines and moved them all over the place, speaking often in very incoherent fashion.
So it really confuses the whole situation.
And these threats mean: look, the United States of America is not supposed to go around bombing civilians, at least not the United States of America that I want to represent.
I don't know what Trump's vision of that is, but even beyond the sheer violence and just immorality of threatening to bomb, much less actually bombing civilian targets, what is it going to accomplish?
You know, all it's going to accomplish is it's going to harden the resolve of the regime and strengthen them.
The Iranian people will now see this as a war against them and as the regime being the only thing that is standing between them and our bombs.
It is the exact opposite of what we said not just under Trump, but for years, and that is, we support the Iranian people, we oppose the regime.
The Iranian people are not responsible for what the Islamic Republic is doing.
And now Donald Trump's rhetoric throughout this war has kind of said the exact opposite, that we are at war with all of Iraq.
So these threats are deadly, wrong, immoral, but also strategically stupid in terms of the long-term goals that we should be trying to accomplish.
The question is: should the U.S. escalate, should it de-escalate, or stay the course in Iran?
Here's what Senator Mark Kelly said, a Democrat.
He said, threatening to target power plants and other non-military targets is not strength.
If those words become orders to destroy civilian infrastructure with no valid military purpose, it's hard to see how they would not violate the laws of armed conflict.
This is Congressman Raja Krishna Murthy, who says, threatening to bomb power plants, bridges, and other civilian infrastructure betrays the values America is supposed to stand for.
We are a nation of laws, of moral leadership, and of respect for innocent human life, not reckless threats that put civilians in the crosshairs.
And this is Ali, who's calling us from North Carolina on the line for independence.
Let's hear from Dawn in Burke, Virginia, Republican.
Good morning, Don.
unidentified
Hi, good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
So I just, you know, I don't necessarily agree with some of the wording and language that the president uses, but I do want to say that, you know, we're dealing with a country that, speaking of, you know, Iran, we're dealing with a country that has no value of human life.
And I'm not saying that because they don't.
We shouldn't.
But what I do want to say is, do you think they care about what they would have done to that pilot if they would have found him?
Do you think that they care now what they did to us for 911?
I mean, people need to start like remembering these things.
And this is Charles Independent, Phoenix City, Alabama.
You're on the air, Charles.
unidentified
Good morning.
I'm a 20-year investment in the military.
I did 20 years, and looking back, this should not happen.
For those that want this to happen, what I would say is that you be the first in line to put a uniform on or either have one of your loved ones put a uniform on, and then you will have a different look at how this is supposed to go down.
But Kevin, so keeping in Iran, leaving Iraq to the side for now, but going with Iran, when you say that they're a radical regime, that they're bent on self-destruction, so destroying them further doesn't really help, does it?
Or what do you think of that opinion?
unidentified
Well, you see, that's all they understand.
Every leader over there is that way.
I mean, think about if you want me to put Iraq to the side, but it's a lesson out of Iraq.
Sure, go ahead.
Every leader over there is one of these tight-fisted kind of leaders, and they do that because that's what's respected.
You know, like Saddam Hussein, he was that way.
You can't say you're going to do something and not do it because then you lose credibility.
And that's the last thing you want to do in a regime like that.
And let's hear again from President Trump from the press conference yesterday when he was asked about the possibility of violating the Geneva Conventions.
unidentified
Deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure violate the Geneva Conventions and international law.
Who are you with?
I'm with the New York Times, Zolan from the New York Times.
Are you failing?
Failing.
Are you concerned that your threat to bomb power plants and bridges amount to a national circuit?
And because they're not going to have a nuclear weapon.
And if somebody that takes my place someday is weak and ineffective, which possibly that will happen because we had numerous presidents that were weak, ineffective, and afraid of Iran, we're never going to let Iran have a nuclear weapon.
And if you think it's okay for people that are sick of mind, that are tough, smart, and sick, really sick, From a policy standpoint, from a standpoint, any which way you want to say, mentally, these are disturbed people.
If you think I'm going to allow them, and powerful and rich, to have a nuclear weapon, you can tell your friends at the New York Times, not going to happen.
You no longer have credibility at the New York Times.
Because the New York Times said, oh, Trump won't win the election, and I wanted a landslide.
I won every swing state.
New York Times said, oh, Trump won't win the election.
New York Times has no credibility.
The credibility they have is it used to be all the news that's fit to print.
A great, the old gray lady, it was great, but they're running on past fumes, and you can't keep doing that.
And that press conference, we have it in its entirety on our website at c-span.org if you missed it.
We are taking your calls now to Susan in Pennsylvania, Line for Democrats.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
My name is, well, you know my name, well, Susan.
Trump Running Without Guardrails00:02:17
unidentified
The way I feel about the war is that it should not be going forward like this.
Donald Trump has to have guardrails.
I think he should have had guardrails.
But I was wondering how he could be doing all this.
So I wanted to look up about Project 2025, which he always said he didn't know anything about it.
But as soon as he got in, he put all the people in there.
And I just looked it up on Google.
And it said that based on reports regarding the second Trump administration, leaders aligned with the Project 2025 philosophy and appointed by Donald Trump have implemented a highly aggressive, force-driven policy toward Iran, moving beyond the maximum pressures framework initially outlined in the 2025.
But in either case, I feel that he has had no guardrails against him, as he did the first time, because he fired anybody that would say anything that would go against what he wanted to do.
It's just not the American way.
He is just with Hegset, they've proven themselves just to be able to kill people, bombing them, fishermen, who knows, they say drug dealers in the water.
How could this be going on in America?
It's not American.
I called my three representatives yesterday and told them that I feel that Trump is running rogue without any guardrails, and I blame my Republican congressman.
He should be speaking out and saying something, led by just following him like he's God.