Waltz blasted the Financial Times on X over the headline and article, calling them “garbage.”
The Financial Times reported this morning that the Trump administration is prepared for a “long standoff” with Iran, citing comments from U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz. The article also says that Waltz “acknowledged that a year from now the US could still be mired in a stalemate with Iran, without a deal on Tehran’s nuclear programme or a return to prewar shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.” There is just one problem: Waltz never said any of that.
The article was a snippet of a longer podcast interview between FT reporter Abigail Hauslohner and Waltz, formerly the national security adviser and comfortably on the hawkish side of the ledger.
For clarity’s sake, and to correct the record, this is what Waltz actually said:
Abigail Hauslohner: “How long do you think it’ll take to get Iran to capitulate under this status quo pressure?”
Mike Waltz: “Well, we’ll see. The president and the U.S. Navy can maintain this blockade for their foreseeable future. The maximum pressure campaign is only tightening. The regime, which controls 40 to 50% of the Iranian economy, continues to suffer under the pressure. So our pursuit of a diplomatic solution is bolstered and backed by both economic and military, if necessary. That’s the president’s decision—pressure.”
Hauslohner: “Do you think this could still be largely the status quo a year from now?”
Waltz: “I’m not gonna put out hypotheticals. One would hope that they’ll come to the table in a meaningful way before that.
Hauslohner: “But if they don’t . . .”
Waltz: “Well, again, these are decisions for the president, how long he wants to sustain the blockade, how long he wants to pursue a diplomatic track with a mix of economic, diplomatic, and military pressure. Those are the decisions and the tough decisions and the hard truth that the American people elected him to follow and to do.”
Absent from that exchange with Waltz are the words “long standoff” or the insinuation of one. The only mention of a timetable is Waltz’s belief that the U.S. can continue the blockade for the “foreseeable future,” which hardly indicates a long standoff.
Nor is there an acknowledgement of the so-called stalemate that the United States is “prepared” to find itself in a year from now. Quite the opposite. Waltz cites the trio of options — economic, diplomatic, military — at the president’s disposal.
The Wall Street Journal reported this week that oil is flowing through the Strait of Hormuz at rates exceeding pre-war levels, thanks to a sophisticated — and successful — naval operation escorting tankers through the strait.
Waltz blasted the FT on X over the headline and article, calling them “garbage”: “The description of my comments in this article as well as in the podcast is conjecture on their part and they should correct it immediately.”
To make matters worse, just two days before the piece’s publication, the FT ran an op-ed authored by Abbas Araghchi, the foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who — in the pages of the Financial Times — warned of a “more painful outcome” if Trump did not cede to Tehran’s demands.
The Financial Times managed to put words in the mouth of a U.S. diplomat while giving Iran’s foreign minister a platform to threaten Washington — and only one of them was quoted accurately.