"Mike Waltz, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told ABC News on Sunday that President Donald Trump wants Iranian leaders who will not threaten "the United States or allies in the region” when asked about the president's recent comments on choosing the country's next head of state."

This opening statement immediately frames the president's direct involvement in choosing a foreign leader's successor, which is an unusual and attention-grabbing claim for standard diplomacy, even if reported as a statement rather than an action.

""So in terms of our military objectives, the president is right. We are not only ahead of schedule, we are winning," Waltz said."

The claim of being 'ahead of schedule' and 'winning' in a military conflict, especially one that isn't fully defined as a 'war' by all parties, is framed as a significant and positive development, drawing attention with an optimistic and decisive tone.

"Mike Waltz, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations"

The initial identification of Waltz by his high-level governmental position lends immediate weight and credibility to his statements, leveraging the authority of the U.S. government and the UN ambassadorship.

"Waltz told “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz."

Reporting an interview with a prominent media figure on a well-known news program adds a layer of established journalistic authority and implied importance to the content.

"I could tell you, as a veteran, in no uncertain terms, the United States does everything it can to avoid civilian casualties."

Waltz leverages his personal experience as a veteran to assert expertise and credibility on the ethical conduct of the U.S. military, attempting to bolster the claim that the U.S. avoids civilian harm.

"Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said the U.S. is still investigating the incident but President Trump said Saturday that he believes Iran was at fault."

The article uses the statements of two high-ranking officials – the Defense Secretary and the President – to present information, relying on their institutional authority to frame the narrative around the school bombing incident.

"he wants to see leadership in Iran that no longer threatens the United States or allies in the region; that isn't attacking civilian airports, ports, shipping, terminals, hotels, and lashing out in the way that it is"

This quote clearly establishes an 'us' (the United States and its allies, and presumably the reader) and a 'them' (the current Iranian leadership that threatens and attacks), framing the situation in an adversarial, tribal manner.

"So it has to be someone that we can deal with. It has to be someone that doesn't threaten Americans, attack Americans, and try to attack us and our allies at any given chance."

This reinforces the 'us vs. them' dynamic, strongly differentiating between acceptable leaders (those 'we can deal with') and the current, unacceptable Iranian leadership defined by their threats and attacks against 'Americans' and 'our allies'.

"Waltz appeared to be referring to a hospital explosion in Gaza in October 2023 that killed hundreds during the early days of the Israel-Hamas war, which the U.S. later said was caused by a failed Palestinian rocket launch. He added later, "I could tell you, as a veteran, in no uncertain terms, the United States does everything it can to avoid civilian casualties. Sometimes, of course, tragic mistakes occur -- unlike what we see from the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Iranian regime.""

This passage creates a stark 'us vs. them' when discussing civilian casualties. 'The United States' is portrayed as doing 'everything it can to avoid' them, while various opposing groups ('Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Iranian regime') are implicitly or explicitly accused of not having such scruples, drawing a clear moral tribal line.

"he wants to see leadership in Iran that no longer threatens the United States or allies in the region; that isn't attacking civilian airports, ports, shipping, terminals, hotels, and lashing out in the way that it is"

This evokes a sense of threat and instability, playing on potential fears for safety and security by listing various targets and actions attributed to current Iranian leadership, implying danger to the readership's interests.

"Waltz added that Iran's next leader should not "hold energy supplies hostage" for the rest of the world or try to build a nuclear weapon."

These claims tap into significant fears: energy scarcity/economic disruption ('hold energy supplies hostage') and existential threats ('build a nuclear weapon'), aiming to generate anxiety about Iran's potential future actions.

"I just can't put my mind around how many Americans have been attacked and killed [by Iran] from Beirut to the Iraq War and to the hostages [in 1979 Iran hostage crisis]."

By listing historical grievances and casualties attributed to Iran, Waltz attempts to ignite outrage and a sense of injustice among American readers, connecting current policy to past suffering.

"I could tell you, as a veteran, in no uncertain terms, the United States does everything it can to avoid civilian casualties. Sometimes, of course, tragic mistakes occur -- unlike what we see from the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Iranian regime."

This statement aims to cultivate a sense of moral superiority for the U.S. military's conduct compared to its adversaries, positioning the U.S. as ethically responsible even in 'tragic mistakes,' differentiating it sharply from what is portrayed as the intentional harm caused by the named groups.