"...thank God the president is taking action now and stopping this march towards a fully fledged nuclear program, instead of waiting until after it's developed, like we saw in North Korea under the Clinton administration say, surprise, we now have, a full program."

This quote frames the current action as uniquely decisive and necessary, implying that past approaches (like under Clinton) were failures, thus presenting the current situation as an urgent, never-before-tackled problem requiring immediate attention.

"I thank God he is not kicking the can like so many administrations have for fifty years, until this is a catastrophic problem where we have very limited options to deal with, much less an entire Middle East potentially awash in nukes."

Similar to the above, this frames the current approach as a necessary and singular break from past, supposedly inadequate, policies that led to a 'catastrophic problem,' creating a sense of an unprecedented and critical situation.

"We're joined now by the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz..."

Introducing Mike Waltz as the U.S. Ambassador to the UN immediately establishes his interview as authoritative due to his official position representing the US at an international body, lending weight to his statements.

"I have no doubt that the president, the Pentagon, their team will ensure that what they target is geared towards the military infrastructure of Iran. But I have to tell you, they deliberately blend, have a long history, everything from hiding weapons under schools and hospitals to using power plants and other critical infrastructure to not only power their military but their civilian, and they deliberately blend in contravention of international law."

Ambassador Waltz, in his capacity, speaks for 'the president, the Pentagon, their team,' leveraging their implied expert knowledge and intention to justify potential actions and sidestep concerns about war crimes.

"And as a veteran, as a parent, I thank God he is not kicking the can like so many administrations have for fifty years, until this is a catastrophic problem where we have very limited options to deal with, much less an entire Middle East potentially awash in nukes."

The Ambassador uses his personal credentials ('as a veteran, as a parent') to add an emotional and relatable layer to his authoritative stance, suggesting his support for the President's actions comes from a place of experience and care.

"but at the same time, the president is not going to stand for this regime, as it has threatened and tried for five decades to hold the world's energy supplies hostage under its, its genocidal intent."

This statement clearly sets up an 'us vs. them' dynamic, portraying the US/allies as standing against a 'regime' with 'genocidal intent' that threatens global energy. This tribalization demonizes the opposing side.

"And so to the extent we are degrading their military capability and their defense industrial base, all options should be on the table, and the president has made that very clear."

This creates a clear opposition between 'we' (the US and presumably its allies) and 'their' (Iran's) military capabilities, reinforcing the us-vs-them narrative where one side's actions are justified to degrade the other's.

"A majority say the number one job of the commander in chief is to keep Americans safe. I can point here to an NBC poll, 90% of Republicans, broader Republicans, support Trump's effort to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities."

By citing polling data, Waltz attempts to manufacture consensus, particularly within a significant political demographic ('broad Republicans'), to suggest widespread support for the President's potentially aggressive actions against Iran, even in the face of broader American disapproval.

"self-described MAGA Republicans give the president a 100% percent approval rating--"

This leverages a specific political identity ('MAGA Republicans') and their unwavering support for the president to suggest that aligning with this group means aligning with the president's decisions, turning political identity into a marker for supporting the conflict.

"One can only imagine if it had a nuclear umbrella. One could only imagine if Iran achieved its aim to test. Then you have Saudi Arabia wanting a nuclear program, then perhaps the UAE, Turkey or others. And when people ask why this matters to our security here at home, it should petrify every American that you could potentially have a nuclear Middle East awash in weapons."

This passage uses vivid, fear-inducing language ('petrify every American,' 'nuclear Middle East awash in weapons') to conjure a domino effect of nuclear proliferation directly tied to Iran's actions, aiming to create profound fear regarding homeland security.

"Well, I think you know, I would encourage and will encourage the Secretary General to point out the twenty to thirty thousand Iranians that the regime massacred at scale, the civilian infrastructure that they are attacking--"

This statement attempts to preemptively deflect criticism of potential US actions by invoking alleged atrocities committed by the Iranian 'regime' ('twenty to thirty thousand Iranians that the regime massacred at scale,' 'civilian infrastructure that they are attacking'), aiming to generate outrage against the adversary and justify aggressive countermeasures.

"And we just have to you know, thank God the president is taking action now and stopping this march towards a fully fledged nuclear program, instead of waiting until after it's developed, like we saw in North Korea under the Clinton administration say, surprise, we now have, a full program."

This passage creates a sense of urgent necessity by framing the President's actions as a timely intervention preventing a catastrophic future, implying that inaction (like perceived past administrations') would lead to inevitable failure. The 'thank God' phrase also adds an emotional appeal.

"Iran has lied about in terms of its development, said they were not developing yet. They just lied. Yet they just did it."

The repeated accusation of 'lied' and 'just did it' aims to generate outrage and distrust regarding Iran's intentions and actions, portraying them as deceptive and untrustworthy, which can fan emotional responses supporting aggressive policies.

"I thank God he is not kicking the can like so many administrations have for fifty years, until this is a catastrophic problem where we have very limited options to deal with, much less an entire Middle East potentially awash in nukes."

This language evokes fear of a 'catastrophic problem' and a 'Middle East potentially awash in nukes' as the inevitable outcome of past policy failures and future inaction, urging the reader to embrace the current aggressive stance as the only way to avoid calamity.