Peloni: The irony of this report is that Waltz, who was a former member of the Bush wing of the Republican party, was too forwardly inclined toward interventionist action, so he is now to be replaced with another former member of the Bush wing of the Republican party, Sec. of State Rubio. In fact, if the setting of Waltz meeting with Netanyahu just prior to the Oval Office meeting was what doomed Waltz, why was he the only one penalized for doing so, recalling that Witkoff was also present in that meeting. As Lee Smith noted on X, “Washington Post is always anti-Trump and not to be trusted. This story also comes from anti-MAGA schemers trying to undermine US national security and tilt to Iran terror state. Basically, it’s evidence of another anti-Trump coup, from the inside.”
President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, Monday, February 24, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Photo by The White House – Flickr , Public Domain)
The recently fired U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz reportedly angered President Donald Trump with his embrace of hardline policies toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.
“Waltz wanted to take U.S. policy in a direction Trump wasn’t comfortable with because the U.S. hadn’t attempted a diplomatic solution,” an unnamed official told The Washington Post.
“It got back to Trump, and the president wasn’t happy with it,” the official added.
One Trump advisor reportedly compared Waltz’s actions to political insubordination: “If Jim Baker was doing a side deal with the Saudis to subvert George H.W. Bush, you’d be fired.”
“You can’t do that. You work for the president of your country, not a president of another country,” another official said.
Additionally, Trump was said to be frustrated by Waltz’s reported “intense coordination” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding a potential military strike on Iran’s nuclear sites ahead of Netanyahu’s February meeting with Trump.
The Prime Minister’s Office denied having had “intensive contact” with Waltz. However, in a February post on ?, it confirmed that Netanyahu had met with Waltz and Steve Witkoff ahead of the Trump meeting, stating: “Prime Minister Netanyahu had a warm meeting with Mike Waltz and Steve Witkoff at Blair House in February, prior to his meeting with President Trump at the White House.”
Waltz was widely seen as part of the Trump administration’s hawkish faction, advocating military action against the Iranian regime and its covert nuclear facilities.
In December, after his appointment, Waltz pledged that the administration would adopt a more aggressive Iran policy following Trump’s re-election in November 2024.
“You’re going to see a huge shift on Iran,” Waltz stated. “We have to constrain their cash. We have to constrain their oil. We have to go back to maximum pressure, number one, which was working under the first Trump administration.”
His hardline stance reportedly clashed with more moderate voices inside the administration who favored diplomacy.
While Trump was reportedly uneasy with Waltz’s approach to Iran, his decision to dismiss him was reportedly triggered by a communications mishap dubbed “Signalgate,” in which Waltz mistakenly included The Atlantic‘s editor in a group chat that revealed sensitive information about U.S. strikes on Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen.
Trump’s long-term Iran strategy remains unclear. In late March, he warned that unless Tehran agreed to a new nuclear deal, “There will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.”
He has also vowed to hold Tehran accountable for ongoing aggression by its Houthi proxy.
Despite his public openness to diplomacy, Trump has not ruled out the use of military force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Some Israeli officials are increasingly concerned that Trump may repeat what they view as the diplomatic missteps of the Obama administration.
In a recent interview with Time Magazine, Trump denied blocking an Israeli military operation against Iran.
“I didn’t stop them,” he said. “But I didn’t make it comfortable for them, because I think we can make a deal without the attack. I hope we can.”
While expressing optimism about a potential agreement, Trump added that he would not hesitate to lead military action if talks failed.
“You asked if he’d drag me in, like I’d go in unwillingly. No, I may go in very willingly if we can’t get a deal. If we don’t make a deal, I’ll be leading the pack.”
@stevenl “Russian Roulette” was the title of a 2018 Russia Collusion Hoax propaganda book which Amazon still sells. Here is an article from 2021 critiquing this and many others of its ilk.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/making-book-trump-bruce-bawer/
Would Trump ask Putin how to play Russian roulette!
It is a fact that at this point in time the American public at large has no appetite for starting military actions of any kind, but especially getting dragged in to what is seen as a quagmire in the Middle East.
The American public as a whole doesn’t know that the Iranian people would celebrate if Israel or the US or both ended the regime of the genocidal Mullahs.
The American public looks on starting a war or starting a military action “unprovoked” as the equivalent to Vietnam.
So Trump doesn’t actually have the political capital at this time for what Walz was calling for, if the above report is accurate.
It is hard to explain why Trump would favor negotiating with the Mullahs over their nuclear program when he ran in 2016 on ending the nuclear deal which he characterized as a terrible deal that worked only for the Iranian regime. The only explanation I can come to is that if negotiations fail, Trump can then make a case to Americans that “this regime is serious about wanting to get one or more nuclear warheads on a missile to take out and destroy the entire country of Israel, and all attempts at negotiations have failed.”
Even then, he may just assist Israel, and not have the US military go in alone.
It is all unclear at this point.
However, if anyone thinks Trump has turned his back on Israel I think that would be a little unfair. There really has never been such a pro-Israel president in US history. Trump feels a deep connection to Israel. Whereas the globalist administration which preceded Trump worked to overthrow the Netanyahu government, Trump has worked to support Israel’s efforts in Gaza with weapons, etc.
In addition, a globalist US administration would probably go the UN and object to Israel going into Syria to make sure their border with Syria is secure, and actually taking land close to Damascus as the Israeli security agencies felt was necessary to protect the Israeli border and also be able to aid the Druze community in Syria.
Also a Trump appointee is keeping an eye on Lebanon to make sure the government doesn’t weaken their opposition to Hezbollah, and to help make certain Hezbollah’s movements are tracked and watched carefully by Israel. So these are two countries outside of Israel that Israel has essentially been given freedom to act for the safety and security of the Israeli people that another US President might object to and possibly even withhold weapons, like the globalist Biden administration did.
I think it is fair to be concerned that Trump is continuing on this negotiation track with Iran, if it continues past its useful date.
I also wonder if Israel has thought to ask for American military assistance in Gaza, or if Israel feels Israel can handle Gaza on her own.
On second thought, Israel handled Gaza already better than the US handled similar situations in Iraq, so I’m not sure Israel needs American assistance, it’s probably more accurate to consider that Israel could teach Americans a lot about fighting in close urban conditions.
So I guess I empathize with those concerned about Trump’s relationship or policies in regard to Israel. But I think he hasn’t shown much in the way that is different except this negotiation tactic with Iran.
It’s fair to watch what he does, read what he posts, and listen to what he actually says, as opposed to what others in his administration say.
I also wonder if the issue was not that Walz got ahead of Trump about attacking Iran, but that in general, Trump was not satisfied with him for other reasons that he would not want to discuss publicly. Sundance wrote months ago that the first person in Trump’s administration that would be fired would be Walz.
“Mike Walz comes from a view that the Intel Community is essentially good, just under the control of bad actors. There are volumes of direct and specific evidence that this is not the correct perspective. The IC system is corrupt by design, the mandates and interpreted policies that formulate the mission statements of the bureaucrats within it are the problem, not just the corrupt officials carrying out the mission.
“It is almost impossible to understand the scale of the corruption within the IC from a position inside the silos under the control of the IC, the “six ways to Sunday” group. It is only when you exit those silos and engage with the world that is not under the control of the IC that you fully grasp just how fraudulent the constructs are.”
Now if this is the real reason Walz was let go, that would be a very good reason to fire him.