...
By Gabe Whisnant
News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Pope Leo XIV delivered one of his strongest rebukes yet of President Donald Trump’s escalating rhetoric toward Iran, condemning threats against the country’s population and culture as “truly unacceptable” and warning that attacks on civilian infrastructure would violate international law.
Speaking to reporters Tuesday as he left his country residence in Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome, the pope responded directly to Trump’s latest comments, suggesting that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran failed to meet a U.S. deadline tied to the widening conflict.
Leo said the language amounted to a threat against the Iranian people as a whole, not merely the nation’s leadership.
Read More on World
“Today, as we all know, there was this threat against all the people of Iran,” the pope said. “This is truly unacceptable.”
...
Leo stressed that international law explicitly forbids military actions targeting civilian infrastructure or cultural centers, placing his criticism not only in moral terms but also within established legal frameworks governing warfare. His remarks marked a rare and sharply worded condemnation of specific language used by a sitting U.S. president, reflecting rising concern among religious and international leaders as the conflict approaches a dangerous turning point.
The Vatican has repeatedly appealed for restraint since the war escalated, but Leo’s comments represented a notable shift in tone, directly confronting Trump’s phrasing and framing it as incompatible with international norms. While the pope did not reference specific military plans, he made clear that rhetoric threatening an entire society crosses a line that cannot be justified as diplomacy.
Trump’s Iran Rhetoric Escalates Amid War and Diplomatic Breakdown
Trump’s remarks came as his rhetoric surrounding the Iran war reached a new extreme. Warning of annihilation if Iran did not comply with U.S. demands — including reopening the vital Strait of Hormuz — the president said destruction would be total and irreversible.
The comments followed days of similarly incendiary warnings. Trump said he would “blast Iran into oblivion,” send it “back to the Stone Ages,” and destroy bridges and civilian power plants — statements that experts in military law said could constitute war crimes depending on whether the targets were military objectives, whether the attacks were proportional and whether civilian harm was minimized.
The language stands in stark contrast to the peacemaking image Trump once sought to cultivate. During his return to office, the president openly pushed for a Nobel Peace Prize and cast himself as a dealmaker capable of resolving entrenched conflicts. In January, after Iran violently suppressed protests, Trump told the Iranian people that “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”
Now, as the war enters its sixth week, Trump’s warnings have raised urgent questions about whether the president is threatening actions barred under international law, whether the rhetoric signals willingness to further escalate the conflict — even potentially with nuclear force — or whether it is, as some allies suggest, extreme bluster meant to extract concessions.
“The Iranian regime has until 8PM Eastern Time to meet the moment and make a deal with the United States,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday. “Only the President knows where things stand and what he will do.”
Another White House spokeswoman, Anna Kelly, defended Trump’s posture, saying Iran can never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and arguing that greater destruction could still be avoided if Tehran grasped the seriousness of the moment.
...
Lawmakers, Allies Warn of War Crimes and Dangerous Precedent
Trump’s remarks drew swift condemnation from Democrats, some Republicans and former allies who have since broken with him. Democratic House leaders said the threat to eradicate an entire civilization “shocks the conscience,” while Senate Democrats called it “a betrayal of the values this nation was founded on.”
Some Republicans urged caution. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said the language was “an affront to the ideals our nation has sought to uphold and promote around the world for nearly 250 years.” Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a longtime Trump ally, said he hoped the president’s threats were bombast rather than intent.
“I am hoping and praying that this really is bluster,” Johnson said. “We are not at war with the Iranian people.”
Others framed the rhetoric as leverage. Republican Senator Todd Young of Indiana, a Marine Corps veteran, said Trump appeared to be trying to bring the conflict to a close quickly by maximizing pressure. But that interpretation did little to calm fears among critics who warned the words themselves could escalate the crisis.
Former Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a staunch supporter of Trump, suggested invoking the 25th Amendment, which allows the Cabinet and the vice president to remove a president if deemed unfit. “We cannot kill an entire civilization,” she wrote on X. “This is evil and madness.”
Trump's Iran Deadline Looms
The pope’s comments came as military and diplomatic tensions intensified across the Middle East. Iran rejected the latest ceasefire proposal, and its president said millions of citizens — including himself — had volunteered to fight. U.S. officials warned of potential retaliation against American interests, prompting U.S. embassies in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to issue security alerts urging Americans to shelter in place, restrict movement or consider leaving.
Experts said Trump’s threats to destroy civilian infrastructure raise serious legal questions. Depending on targeting and civilian harm, such acts could violate international humanitarian law. Trump dismissed those concerns, saying he was “not at all” worried that his statements amounted to war crimes.
Political scientists say Trump has long embraced unpredictability as a strategic asset, invoking what is often called the “Madman Theory” — convincing adversaries he is capable of extreme actions to force compliance. But scholars warn that repeated norm‑shattering rhetoric risks making escalation more likely, not less.
Updates: 4/7/26, 6:22 p.m. ET: This article was updated with new information and remarks.
This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines