By Dan Steinbock             

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 reference destroying civilian systems. As a result, they materially strengthen the legal case that ensuing actions were not accidental—but foreseeable, planned, or accepted.

What has been left unsaid is that the White House has embraced core aspects of the devastating military strategy that Israel developed in the early 2000s, tested in Dahiya, Beirut in 2006 and has executed broadly in Gaza’s genocide since fall 2023, as I showed in The Obliteration Doctrine (2025).      

Tens of thousands of civilian sites damaged and destroyed       

The US government typically describes its strikes as targeted against military, infrastructure, or nuclear sites, and has not officially verified the scale of civilian damage reported by Iranian authorities.

Yet, based on reports from the Iranian Red Crescent Society (IRCS) and Iranian officials as of late March and early April 2026, Iran reports that over 90,000 civilian sites—including homes, medical facilities, and schools—have been damaged or destroyed in joint US-Israeli air strikes. That’s over 300 health and emergency facilities. The IRCS has characterized this damage as a deliberate campaign against civilian infrastructure.

These claims come amid a rapid escalation of conflict starting in late February 2026, which has resulted in up to 3.2 to 3.5 million people being displaced within Iran.

IRCS numbers are not independently verified totals. But they are directionally consistent with all other evidence streams.

If the figures reported by the IRCS and Iranian officials are even broadly accurate, the legal implications under international law are extremely serious, because the scale itself becomes legally probative.

With the US at war with Iran and embroiled in conflicts around the world, the Trump White House is asking Congress to approve about $1.5 trillion for defense in the 2027 fiscal year. If enacted, that amount – a 40% increase to the current level – would set US military spending at its highest level in modern history.

It would also amount to a free license to export the Obliteration Doctrine worldwide.

Obliteration as violation of international law            

As demonstrated in The Obliteration Doctrine, this doctrine prioritizes the total destruction of an enemy’s infrastructure and population over traditional military objectives. It relies on four old and brutal methods of devastation.

The scorched-earth policy is a longstanding military strategy of destroying everything that allows an enemy military force to fight a war, including the critical infrastructure, military and state institutions, buildings, crops, livestock, security and so on. Modern historical examples feature the American Civil War and American Indian Wars, and Nazi Germany’s war against the Soviet Union.

Nonetheless, the deployment of scorched-earth policy against non-combatants is banned under the 1977 Geneva Conventions.

Since collective punishment targets individuals who are not responsible for the perpetrated acts, it undermines modern legal systems, which restrict criminal liability to individuals. Yet, it has been widely deployed through history, from late medieval Florence to American Civil War and Nazi occupation of Poland and Yugoslavia, to postwar counter-insurgency campaigns.

Like scorched-earth policy, collective punishment is prohibited in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Civilian victimization is the purposeful use of violence against noncombatants in a conflict.  In civilian victimization, violence is often deployed to foster civilian cooperation and isolate the military adversary by removing civilians from an area, as applied in the U.S. Strategic Hamlet program during the Vietnam War.

Like scorched-earth policy and collective punishment, civilian victimization is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

In its contemporary form, the Obliteration Doctrine accounts for the decimation of urban infrastructure and the genocidal atrocities in the Gaza Strip since 2023. It was first tested in 2006 in Dahiya, a Shia Muslim enclave in Beirut. The net effect has been genocide.

In The Obliteration Doctrine, I argued that Gaza is “most likely a prelude of worse to come.” Now it is spreading to Lebanon, Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Toward algocides 

Since the postwar era, these old sources of obliteration have been coupled with largely indiscriminate area bombardment. In Gaza, it set a historical precedent.

In principle, aerial warfare should comply with laws of war, which regulates the conditions for initiating war (jus ad bellum) and the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello). In particular, aerial operations should comply with the principles of humanitarian law: that is, of military necessity, objective, and proportionality.

Based on Article 51 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, carpet bombing has been considered a war crime since 1977, conveniently after the Vietnam War.

There is one more ingredient to the contemporary Obliteration Doctrine: Israel’s mass assassination factories deploying artificial intelligence for maximum devastation. After October 7, 2023 the Israeli military gave officers sweeping approval to embrace the kill lists of the Lavender program, knowing that the system made “errors” in about 10% of cases and occasionally targeted individuals who had no connection to militants.

For every Hamas operative marked by Lavender, it was permissible to kill up to 15-20 civilians. Backed with AI, the military purposely used “dumb bombs” to hit these homes. Algocide can be defined as a deliberate effort to use the algorithms of artificial intelligence in genocidal atrocities.

In the past weeks, Israel and the US have deployed AI-powered warfare in Iran and Lebanon, using advanced systems for intelligence analysis, target generation, and drone/missile tracking to accelerate the “kill chain”. Israel is using AI tools like “Lohem” and AI-driven data analysis for targeting in Lebanon, while the US relies on Pentagon AI program “Project Maven” to analyze data in the conflict with Iran.

Reports on Israeli AI deployment and US AI-warfare indicate these technologies have enhanced targeting speed while raising serious questions about deliberate civilian damage. These systems were largely matured in the Gaza.

The rules-based order of butchery      

Here’s the problem: the interlocking core aspects of Obliteration Doctrine directly violate several fundamental principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the laws of war:

• Collective punishment is strictly prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Customary IHL Rule 103;
• Scorched earth tactics is illegal under Additional Protocol I, Article 54;
• Indiscriminate bombing is prohibited by Article 51 of Protocol I;
• Under Geneva Conventions intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime (Principle of Distinction);
• IHL prohibits attacks with excessive civilian loss (Principle of Proportionality).

Nonetheless, AI-enabled warfare does not exempt from these laws. If anything, using AI to facilitate “mass assassination” without human oversight is considered a violation of the obligation to prevent genocide.

The Obliteration Doctrine represents a shift from collateral damage to deliberate civilian victimization, by the countries of the West in the Global South. It is now transforming “war” which is no longer war, and warfare which can no longer called “warfare.”

The blatant destruction of civilians and civilian infrastructure is not war. It is illegal destruction. Nor is it warfare. It is butchery by the mighty.

The world of brutal great power rivalry has a dark track-record. It goes back to capitalist modernity and lethal colonialism in the 19^th century. But the new variant is far more lethal and ambitious. It seeks to globalize obliteration.

The commentary was published by the Informed Comment (US) on April 7, 2026.

About the Author

Dr Dan Steinbock, an expert of the multipolar world, is the founder of Difference Group and has served at the India, China and America Institute (US), Shanghai Institute for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). He is also the author of The Obliteration Doctrine (Sept. 2025) and The Fall of Israel (Oct. 2024). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net/ 

By Dan Steinbock 

After 1 month of hostilities and no exit plans, the economic and human costs of the US-Israel joint war against Iran are soaring in the region, increasingly global and testing US-China ties.

Originally set for March, the high-stakes summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping was postponed for about “five or six weeks,” due to the U.S. focus on military operations in Iran.

The delay suggests that the Trump administration grossly underestimated Iran’s resilience.

The summit will take place under the shadow of the worst energy crisis since the 1970s.

US-China stakes in the crisis    

The crisis itself illustrates the differential stakes the two major powers have in the outcome. US military exposure is high, due to its military bases and fleets in the Gulf, whereas China’s armed presence is minimal. As a result, US strategic position is militarily stretched, whereas China’s is economically exposed.

Furthermore, US energy vulnerability is low, thanks to its domestic production. By contrast, China’s energy exposure is high, due to its import dependency. Accordingly, the US is only moderately exposed to an adverse economic impact in the Gulf, whereas in China that effect will be more substantial.

Even if the Trump administration’s initial “decapitation” strike succeeded tactically, as its proponents argue, it has failed strategically. The Iranian leadership remains intact and the command dispersed.

After 1 month of the unwarranted war, the U.S. enjoys escalation dominance, but it has been stalemated. US and Israel have air superiority, yet Iran retains strategic denial via missiles, proxies, and Hormuz leverage.

Unwarranted devastation    

The crisis has spread across the region and beyond. It has caused a severe disruption to global oil flows, threatening 20% of global consumption—some 20 million barrels per day—that typically passes through Hormuz. Over 94% of normal traffic through Hormuz collapsed already in mid-March.

In one of the largest energy shocks since the 1970s, oil has soared by more than 50%, up to $110-120, with supply down by 11 mb/d (million barrels per day). Global system has suffered a highly adverse impact with airspace closures, rerouted shipping, and data infrastructure hits.

In Iran alone, some 1,900-3,500 people have been killed, with up to 17,000-20,000 wounded. The US-Israel strikes have caused widespread damage, with more than 90,000 civilian installations hit, including schools, hospitals, and residential buildings.

Over 3.2 million people are internally displaced in Iran, primarily fleeing major urban centers. In Lebanon, that figure is over 1-1.2 million; that’s every fifth or sixth Lebanese.

A 2-Month War Scenario

At the end of March, the White House assessed that a mission to pry open Hormuz would push the conflict beyond his timeline of 4-6 weeks. As a result, President Trump reportedly told his aides that he’s willing to end the war without reopening the chokepoint. Let’s presume the report is not fake news and the war will continue toward the end of April.

From the military perspective, the U.S. continues its air and missile war, even if the naval campaign to reopen Hormuz may or may not intensify. Limited ground and Marine deployments may or may not occur. If Americans engage, Houthis in Yemen and Iraqi militias join in the conflict.

Despite Trump’s repeated “mission accomplished” claims, there is no decisive victory. Gradual attrition prevails as Iran’s infrastructure continues to be degraded.

War fatigue rises in Israel, where anti-government demonstrations escalate. Iranian missile barrages have depleted Israel’s stockpile of high-end interceptors, forcing a shift toward rationing and relying on less capable systems.

In the US, the Pentagon continues to downplay the costly toll of Iranian missiles, even though by late March many of the 13 military bases in the region used by US troops were ”all but uninhabitable.”

Oil price stabilizes around $120–150, but remains volatile. The supply disruption is persistent.

Spillovers changing the region

After 1 month of hostilities, every country in the primary battlefield – Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Israel – is likely to suffer an adverse GDP impact of up to -6 to -30%.

In most Gulf states, that impact is already at -3 to -12%, which threatens to defer the ambitious modernization projects in the region for years.

In the proximate Middle East, most economies, including Egypt, Turkey and Jordan, are taking hits of -2 to -6%. When such negative shocks come after two years of regional stabilization by Israel with US support, it leaves these countries vulnerable.

By the end of April, the regional impact is likely to amount to -4% to -7%. Add another month and it will climb to -6% to -12%. Gulf economies alone could see a plunge of −5% to −15% in severe scenarios.

Some are indirectly affected via an inflation shock (Morocco, Tunisia). Big Gulf actors like Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar benefit from price gains, but suffer from disruption.

Several economies – Iraq, Jordan, Gulf states – cope with high stress, due to fiscal strains and security pressures.

Only low-exposure gas exporters like Algeria benefit in the short-term, but no regional state is immune to rising fiscal pressures and geopolitical risks.

If hostilities prove extended, Lebanon and Yemen will teeter at the edge of state or infrastructure breakdown. The same goes for Iran, as long as the White House mistakes PM Netanyahu’s ambitions with US national security.

Strategic options and priorities                        

The Trump White House is burning almost $1 billion daily in the war. Critics argue that the first month of spending totals close to $37 billion. The administration is seeking $200 billion supplemental funding from the Congress. By contrast, China avoids war costs but must absorb energy and trade shock.

In a 2-month war the US pays in strategy (overextension), whereas China pays in economics (energy shock).

What about the next 4 weeks?

In terms of its strategic options, the US seeks to keep Hormuz partially open. It could release some of its stockpile of crude oil to mitigate economic shocks. It can push non-MENA supply (US shale, Atlantic basin). In the short term, it can tolerate high prices to avoid deeper entanglement.

China, too, can draw down reserves. It can also secure long-term contracts (Russia, Central Asia). It could quietly buy discounted Iranian barrels. And it can engage in limited escort and diplomacy to stabilize energy flows.

Regarding their respective postures in the Middle East, the US is likely to persist in what it calls controlled escalation. China will stress its role as a non-military actor. It willl focus on diplomacy and economic ties. It will position as a mediator and avoid security commitments.

US priority is – or at least should be – not to  get trapped in MENA. By contrast, China’s priority is to let US absorb the security costs, while avoiding sanctions and escalation in bilateral relations. 

What if regional war lingers 

If diplomacy fails, regional war emerges as an alternative scenario, as hostilities escalate from Iran and Lebanon to Gulf, Iraq, Yemen, even beyond. A sustained closure of Hormuz would amplify the supply shock undermining global prospects.

The number of deaths doubles, regional displacement exceeds 5 million. Brent oil climbs to $120-150, even $150-200 in the worst scenarios. If infrastructure is damaged, far greater losses loom ahead.

Some analysts declare it’s the 1970s déjà vu all over again. They are wrong. Since global economy is today more integrated, the negative ramifications will reverbarate worldwide, not just regionally. Even in the most benign scenario, the world economy will pay a hefty price, through the prolonged high-cost equilibrium.

The Iran crisis has exposed the region’s structural contradiction. On the one hand, the Gulf is an energy superpower (40% global gas reserves). But it is also a highly fragile, chokepoint-dependent system. In this delicate equilibrium, Hormuz holds systemic lever because it controls both oil exports (Gulf states, Iraq, Iran) and liquefied natural gas (Qatar).

The lesson is simple but harsh: With energy disruption everyone loses, as the region morphs from an energy exporter hub to a geopolitical shock epicenter.

The original version was published by China-US Focus on April 4, 2026.

About the Author

Dr. Dan Steinbock is an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net