In a notable essay regarding the Gulf War, linguist George Lakoff argued that metaphors possess the potential to cause harm. He explained that the deployment of metaphors can obscure vital truths in a damaging manner. Lakoff highlighted how the United States framed its military actions through businesslike cost-benefit analyses, sports metaphors, and the narrative of a righteous war characterized by heroes and villains, all of which masked the harsh realities of conflict.
The U.S. military has traditionally favored euphemisms, referring to civilian casualties as “collateral damage” and presenting military operations as “surgical strikes” to imply precision and the notion of a necessary healing process. In stark contrast, former President Donald Trump has opted for overt threats, this week issuing a warning to Iran that suggested the potential for genocide. He previously made statements indicating a desire to bomb Iran “back to the stone age,” targeting critical infrastructure, while already having caused extensive destruction to schools and hospitals. He expressed no concern regarding possible war crimes.
On Tuesday, Trump warned that “a whole civilization will die tonight” unless Iran accepted a deal, a statement that appears to be an attempt to extricate himself from the disastrous conflict initiated six weeks prior. A ceasefire was announced shortly thereafter, but prospects for its stability seemed precarious from the outset. Upcoming talks between the U.S. and Iran in Islamabad also faced uncertainty. While there was relief regarding the ceasefire, particularly among Iranians, apprehension lingered over the potential for renewed hostilities. Concurrently, Israel intensified its military actions in Lebanon, labeling a recent mass strike that resulted in numerous civilian casualties as “Operation Eternal Darkness.”
Despite the use of euphemisms not being entirely eradicated—evidenced by the hundreds of Palestinians killed in Gaza since a ceasefire was declared six months ago—the Israeli government’s rhetoric following the October 2023 Hamas attacks showcased annihilationist sentiments. Trump’s threats aimed at pressuring the Iranian regime into negotiations, but such declarations, particularly from the leader of the world’s most formidable military amidst ongoing bombings, seemed intended to instill fear among the Iranian populace.
The president’s warnings would necessitate military actions that are unequivocally illegal. Although the military is mandated to follow lawful orders, Trump appears to be increasingly isolated by advisors who refrain from challenging him, while his administration has gradually weakened the institutional safeguards that govern military operations. Political philosopher Mathias Risse remarked this week that the rhetoric of cultural annihilation is not only indicative of atrocities but also serves as a tool for perpetrating them. Irrespective of the outcome, such threats constitute a war crime in their own right.
Experts assert that there has seldom been a more explicit expression of intent, yet the prospect of holding Trump accountable under international law seems bleak. Nevertheless, pursuing such accountability is essential. The international community has largely acquiesced to Israel’s actions in Gaza, allowing the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians with minimal objection, thus undermining their commitments to a rules-based order. This week, both the Pope and a prominent actor voiced strong condemnation of Trump’s threats. Allowing these actions to go unchallenged would further erode moral, normative, and legal standards, placing Iranians and others globally at significant risk.
Do you wish to share your thoughts on the topics discussed in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words for consideration in our letters section, please contact us via email.
