Hence the term "Delphic", commonly used in English to mean "dangerously ambiguous".
But in this case, there's not really much ambiguity - Trump is openly threatening genocide and, as a result, is destroying any remaining moral authority that the USA might once have had.
Does anyone knows why current US administration keeps aligning with Chinese interests in their actions while proclaiming that China is their main adversary?
They even send JD Vance to support Orban in his elections. The same Orban and Hungary which Xi Jinping supports and recently visited out of all the EU.
You cannot agree with someone on so many actions and keep pretending that you are against each other.
Putin will be loving it, but I guess China that must be likely to emerge as the real winners from this.
At what point are the US military expected to refuse unlawful orders? Some form of high-level mutiny might actually be the best way forward for America right now.
He said "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again." To me that sounds more like a threat to destroy a civilization than an announcement that the US will be targeting specific parts of Iranian infrastructure, but maybe you are better at reading between the lines than I am.
> We don’t know which infrastructure he wants to attack
I think you may be living under a rock. He has announced multiple times that he wants to go after oil processing, power plants, desalination plants, and bridges. His threat for today's deadline (made last week) is to destroy every power plant and bridge in the country.
Yes, and? That changes exactly nothing about the argument, he still threatened genocide. If someone threatens to kill you, you give them a cookie and they relent ("for now"), that doesn't magically change the past and make it so they didn't threaten to kill you, but instead asked for a cookie.
You are the only one making fake arguments. The threat was explicitly to destroy 'a civilization', which nobody but yourself considers equivalent to 'infrastructure'. Ply your lame rhetorical fallacies elsewhere.
> Genocide is very clear intent to destroy a people.
"a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again."
where is the intent ambiguous to you? are you just one of those that says Trump blusters big to force negotiations? otherwise, he's quite clearly said the he wants to eliminate "a whole civilization" which is exactly what genocide is. not really sure how you can be confused on this other than willingly so
He did exactly that and succeeded. Read his book the art of the deal, in which he says that is precisely his strategy. Historically this is what he does every single time.
He succeeded in opening a strait that was open a month ago in exchange for higher gas prices, destroying a nuclear program he himself said was already destroyed a year ago, killing an 86-year-old leader who would be dead in a couple of years anyway, no regime change, billions of dollars wasted, and dead American soldiers.
Genocide literally means killing a nation, and that's what Trump is threatening. If he achieves those aims by destroying vital infrastructure, it's just as much genocide as if he does it by any other means.
Article IIc of the Genocide Convention would likely cover that particular case, but I'll note that that's just your reading of it - Trump hasn't actually given specifics.
What he definitely has done, though, is make a clear statement of intent. And, historically, the most difficult part in proving genocide has been with demonstrating intent. Trump's just made that bit easy.
But in this case, there's not really much ambiguity - Trump is openly threatening genocide and, as a result, is destroying any remaining moral authority that the USA might once have had.