Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Iran Conflict 2026
6MAR

Trump threatens new target groups

2 min read
14:22UTC

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.

ConflictDeveloping

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
Gulf shipping and insurance markets
Gulf shipping and insurance markets
With Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb both hostile at once, war-risk underwriters face their first dual-chokepoint pricing problem; the rerouting hedge that absorbed one closure is gone for Israeli-linked hulls. Any deal that reopens Hormuz without a Houthi stand-down clause delivers only partial shipping relief.
Russia and China
Russia and China
Russia and China met IAEA chief Grossi jointly in Geneva on 5 June to coordinate an advance blocking position against Washington's censure resolution, the first documented instance of proactive pre-session obstruction rather than reactive post-vote dissent. Beijing's move came four days after OFAC designated Shanghai Qianye Energy under Iran energy sanctions.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia was left out of the emergency $4.01 billion Patriot waiver Qatar received on 2 May as its own PAC-3 stocks ran near-empty from intercepting Iranian salvoes over Aramco facilities. Riyadh is on a standard 18-month FMS queue behind a production line booked through 2030, with no equivalent priority to Qatar's Al Udeid basing role.
Houthis (Ansar Allah)
Houthis (Ansar Allah)
The Houthis declared a complete ban on Israeli Red Sea navigation on 8 June and struck Jaffa, their first attack on Israeli territory since April, seven days after the Tasnim authorisation to activate other fronts including Bab el-Mandeb. The declaration put both chokepoints under hostile authority simultaneously.
Iran
Iran
Iran agreed the 9 June mutual halt after the Mahshahr exchange and coordinated with Russia and China to block Washington's IAEA censure resolution, using the Board as a second front while the bilateral pause held on the military one. Tehran's acceptance of the Lebanon carve-out contradicts the linkage position it stated on 1 June.
Benjamin Netanyahu and the IDF
Benjamin Netanyahu and the IDF
Israel struck the Karun Petrochemical plant at Mahshahr on 8 June over Trump's explicit objection, then agreed a halt with Iran the following day scoped on Israeli terms with Lebanon carved out. Netanyahu's posture is that the IDF will not accept Iranian missile factories as off-limits regardless of US diplomatic timelines.