Skip to content
Iran Conflict 2026
13MAR

Trump threatens new target groups

2 min read
04:41UTC

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
South Korean financial markets
South Korean financial markets
South Korea, which imports virtually all its crude oil, is absorbing the war's economic transmission most acutely among non-belligerents. The second KOSPI circuit breaker in four sessions — with Samsung down over 10% and SK Hynix down 12.3% — reflects an industrial economy unable to reprice energy costs that have risen 72% in ten days. The market response indicates Korean industry cannot sustain oil above $100 per barrel without margin compression across manufacturing, semiconductors, and shipping.
Migrant worker communities in the Gulf
Migrant worker communities in the Gulf
The first confirmed civilian deaths in Saudi Arabia — one Indian and one Bangladeshi killed, twelve Bangladeshis wounded — fell on communities with no voice in the military decisions that placed them in harm's way. Migrant workers live near military installations because that housing is affordable, not by choice. Bangladesh and India face the dilemma of needing to protect nationals who cannot easily leave a war zone while depending on Gulf remittances that fund a substantial share of their domestic economies.
Azerbaijan — President Ilham Aliyev
Azerbaijan — President Ilham Aliyev
Aliyev treats the Nakhchivan strikes as a direct act of war against Azerbaijani sovereignty, placing armed forces on full combat readiness and demanding an Iranian explanation. The response is calibrated to maximise international sympathy while stopping short of military retaliation — Baku cannot fight Iran alone and needs either Turkish or NATO backing to credibly deter further strikes.
Oil-importing nations (Japan, South Korea, India)
Oil-importing nations (Japan, South Korea, India)
The Hormuz closure is an existential threat. Japan, South Korea, and India receive the majority of their crude through the strait — they will bear the heaviest economic cost of a war they had no part in.
Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)
Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)
Neutrality was possible when the targets were military. 148 dead schoolgirls made it impossible — no government can explain that away to its own citizens.
Turkey
Turkey
Has absorbed three Iranian ballistic missile interceptions since 4 March without invoking NATO Article 5 consultation. Each incident narrows Ankara's political room to continue absorbing without Alliance-level response.