Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
European Tech Sovereignty
10JUN

Trump threatens new target groups

2 min read
10:31UTC

A Truth Social post expands stated US war aims to unnamed categories of targets — language without precedent in modern presidential rhetoric and with direct implications under the laws of war.

TechnologyDeveloping

President Trump posted on Truth Social on Saturday morning: "Today Iran will be hit very hard! Under serious consideration for complete destruction and certain death, because of Iran's bad behavior, are areas and groups of people that were not considered for targeting up until this moment in time." Bloomberg ran the headline: "Trump Says US May Target New Parts of Iran." The phrase has no precedent in modern US presidential targeting rhetoric. Prior targets in this campaign have been military: IRGC bases, missile sites, naval vessels, air defences, command infrastructure.

The statement extends a trajectory documented across eight days. Trump demanded unconditional surrender on 5 March , then issued immunity-or-death ultimatums directly to IRGC commanders via social media . CENTCOM was subsequently directed to "dismantle the Iranian regime's security apparatus" — a war aim encompassing the IRGC, Basij, MOIS, and internal security forces , materially different from the campaign's opening framing of nuclear facilities and missile infrastructure. Each step broadened the stated objective. None was accompanied by a diplomatic mechanism to give it operational meaning. Foreign Minister Araghchi publicly closed the door on negotiations . The Egypt-Turkey-Oman mediation has produced no confirmed participants. Congress has rejected war authorisation in both chambers — 212–219 in the House and 47–53 in the Senate .

"Areas" not previously considered could mean cultural heritage sites, civilian government buildings, or infrastructure sustaining the civilian population — power grids, water treatment, telecommunications. "Groups of people" could refer to remaining IRGC leadership, civilian government officials, or religious figures. The United States is not party to Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions but is bound by customary International humanitarian law, including the principle of distinction — the requirement to differentiate between military objectives and civilian objects. The DoD Law of War Manual, which governs US forces, prohibits attacks directed at the civilian population as such. Commanders who receive orders derived from this statement must evaluate them against these requirements. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, personal criminal liability attaches to service members who knowingly execute unlawful orders.

Trump separately cast Pezeshkian's televised apology as a form of surrender. Pezeshkian explicitly rejected the unconditional surrender demand, calling it "a dream that they should take to their grave." The forces Trump now threatens to target more expansively are the same forces Iran's own civilian president cannot control — the IRGC's 31 autonomous provincial commands continued striking Dubai, Saudi oil facilities, and Bahrain within hours of Pezeshkian's halt order. Widening the target set does not resolve the command fragmentation that makes negotiated de-escalation difficult. It compounds the problem by eliminating whatever remains of the institutional structure a future interlocutor would need to enforce a ceasefire.

First Reported In

Update #26 · President orders halt; IRGC ignores him

Bloomberg· 7 Mar 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
Trump threatens new target groups
The statement extends a documented rhetorical escalation from military strikes through unconditional surrender demands to undefined targeting categories potentially encompassing civilian populations, creating legal obligations for US military commanders to evaluate resulting orders against the DoD Law of War Manual and the principle of distinction.
Different Perspectives
European cloud and open-source industry
European cloud and open-source industry
European cloud providers gain a binding procurement mandate from CADA, confirmed by Gartner's $12.6bn sovereign-cloud figure for 2026. The $40bn Pax Silica commitment signals Brussels will not extend sovereignty discipline to the silicon layer, and the missing €350m Sovereign Tech Fund leaves open-source maintenance infrastructure unfunded beneath those same clouds.
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Science Secretary Kendall's £1.1bn Hardware Plan on 8 June chose demand-side instruments, advancing £150m to British chip startups via the British Business Bank, where Brussels chose supply-side alliance membership. Britain joined Pax Silica before the EU and has no collective EU procurement leverage; the Hardware Plan is the bilateral answer to the same silicon gap.
United States
United States
Pax Silica, a State Department initiative launched in December 2025, secured EU membership the same afternoon Brussels adopted its cloud sovereignty law. Ambassador Puzder had named CADA a red line against the EU-US trade framework; the narrowed CADA scope and the $40bn chip commitment together represent the settlement Washington sought.
France
France
France was the only EU state to oppose Pax Silica accession at COREPER on 3 June, asking the Commission to clarify the Council's steering role inside the alliance. Paris backed CADA and hosts Mistral AI; a $40bn US-chip commitment contractually narrows the commercial space for the sovereign AI model that France is trying to scale.
European Commission
European Commission
Von der Leyen framed CADA on 3 June as keeping 'most of our market open to like-minded partners', and the Commission's EVP Virkkunen simultaneously required majority-European ownership for the €4.12bn AI Gigafactories call. Brussels is managing rather than resolving the silicon dependency by asserting regulatory control at the cloud layer while formalising the chip relationship through Pax Silica.
European Central Bank
European Central Bank
The ECB's digital euro pilot drew more than 50 PSP applications and is naming 10 to 30 participants in July, advancing on its own monetary mandate without requiring a Commission act. Its trajectory this week is the inverse of CAIDA's: the sovereignty instrument that restricts no US firm is the only one keeping its published calendar.