Iran: US Adopts Israel’s Gaza/Beirut Obliteration Doctrine – OpEd |
Since fall 2023, Israel has implemented its Obliteration Doctrine in Gaza and now in Lebanon. The United States has adopted it in Iran. In the process, the worst mass atrocity crimes are being normalized in the Global South.
In late March, President Trump threatened to “obliterate Iran’s energy grid,” if a ceasefire was not reached. In his public post, Truth Social, he listed explicit targets, such as power plants, oil facilities and desalination (water) infrastructure. This in addition to the already-massive regional costs and global losses.
On April 4, Trump gave a public ultimatum warning that “hell will rain down” if Iran did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours. The statement featured direct threats to energy infrastructure, water systems.
A day later, on Easter Sunday of all days, Trump posted an expletive-laden warning to Iran, threatening to strike civilian infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz was not reopened. The President set a deadline, stating that if a deal was not reached to “open the F—in’ Strait,” the country would be “living in Hell”
The threats did not come out of the blue. They form a pattern. They have led over 100 international law experts to warn that the US strikes on Iran violate UN Charter and may be war crimes.
Whether Trump will deliver his threat or not, the damage has occurred. The administration has set the stage for the normalization of mass atrocity crimes.
Obliteration rhetoric as a prelude to mass atrocities
What is notable about these statements by Trump, Defense Secretary Hegseth and other members of the cabinet is that they are not just vague wartime rhetoric. They explicitly reference civilian infrastructure systems, including energy (electricity), water (desalination) and economy-wide assets. Presenting themselves as national security contingencies, they are a prelude to mass atrocities.
Since the onset of the Iran attacks, President Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. military has “literally obliterated” Iran’s military capabilities and leadership as part of thea ongoing conflict.
Such statements are problematic because they strongly support allegations of war crimes, particularly targeting civilian infrastructure; collective punishment and disproportionate warfare. Since they are not anomalous but systematic, they also appear to support crimes against humanity. Even independently, they seem to constitute unlawful threats of force
Here’s the bottom line: in international law, words by senior officials are not just political; they are evidentiary. And this applies particularly situations when those words explicitly........