分类： politics

In a historic vote that reshapes Vietnam’s long-standing governing framework, Vietnam’s National Assembly has unanimously confirmed Communist Party General Secretary To Lam as the country’s new president for a five-year term, bringing the top posts of both the ruling party and the state under the control of a single leader. The landmark appointment breaks from decades of collective power-sharing tradition in Vietnam, where the two top leadership positions have customarily been held by separate individuals to balance authority – an alignment that now mirrors the concentrated power structures seen in neighboring China and Laos.

The outcome was widely anticipated by regional political analysts, who flagged the power consolidation as a likely next step after Lam was re-elected to lead the Communist Party during its national congress in January. This is not the first time Lam has held both leadership posts: he briefly assumed both roles in early 2024 following the death of his predecessor as party chief, Nguyen Phu Trong.

After his formal swearing-in, the 69-year-old newly minted president addressed the National Assembly, outlining his core policy priorities. He emphasized that maintaining national peace and political stability would be his top focus, framing that stability as the non-negotiable foundation for Vietnam to achieve fast, long-term economic growth. “We aim to improve people’s livelihoods so all can share the benefits of development,” Lam told the assembled legislators.

Regional experts say the concentration of power in Lam’s hands is the most significant shift in Vietnam’s political landscape since the country launched its 1980s doi moi reform process, which transitioned Vietnam from a closed state-run economy to a market-oriented system open to global foreign investment. Nguyen Khac Giang, a Vietnam researcher at Singapore’s ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute, notes that Lam now holds a far stronger policy mandate and much greater room for political maneuver to advance his policy agenda than any Vietnamese leader has enjoyed since the 1980s reforms began.

“The opportunity is obvious. Faster decision-making, greater policy coherence, and a better chance of pushing difficult reforms at a pivotal moment,” Giang explained. “But the risk is that concentration of power can move faster than institutional reform.”

To Lam’s rise to the pinnacle of Vietnamese politics caps a decades-long career that began in Vietnam’s internal security services, rising through the ranks of the national police force to eventually take charge of the Ministry of Public Security. His ascent was accelerated by his role leading the sweeping national anti-corruption campaign launched by his predecessor Nguyen Phu Trong, when he served as public security minister.

Since taking over as party chief, Lam has already overseen the most ambitious restructuring of Vietnam’s state bureaucracy since the 1980s. His reform agenda to date has included cutting redundant civil service positions, merging overlapping government ministries, redrawing internal provincial administrative boundaries, and advancing large-scale national infrastructure projects. His core economic focus centers on boosting private sector growth and upgrading national economic performance, with the goal of moving Vietnam beyond its current labor- and export-led growth model – a model that has lifted tens of millions of Vietnamese out of poverty and built a large manufacturing-focused middle class over the past three decades. Under Lam’s leadership, the country has set an ambitious target of hitting 10% or higher annual economic growth over the course of his five-year presidential term.

Despite the clear policy opening created by concentrated power, significant challenges remain on multiple fronts. The immediate hurdle is translating Lam’s ambitious economic vision into tangible progress, against a backdrop of a global economy disrupted by energy market shocks stemming from the ongoing conflict in Iran. Vietnam’s first-quarter economic growth came in at an annualized 7.8% this year, up from 7.1% in 2025, but still missed the government’s 9.1% target and was slower than the expansion recorded in the final quarter of 2025.

Beyond economic headwinds, Lam also faces political hurdles to build cross-party consensus for his reform plans, and must continue navigating the delicate balancing act that defines Vietnam’s pragmatic foreign policy. The country currently faces growing trade pressure from the United States over its bilateral trade surplus, while also needing to maintain stable relations with China – Vietnam’s largest single trading partner, and a competing claimant to territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea.

“Vietnam has benefited from a careful balancing strategy in foreign policy, but maintaining that position will become harder in a more turbulent world,” Giang added.

TAIPEI, Taiwan — In a significant development that marks the first visit by a Taiwanese opposition leader to mainland China in 10 years, Kuomintang chairwoman Cheng Li-wun departed Taipei Tuesday for a trip to mainland China, accepted an official invitation from Chinese President Xi Jinping. Cheng frames her trip as a peace-seeking mission amid long-running cross-Strait tensions, as Beijing maintains its sovereign claim over the self-governing island and has repeatedly refused to rule out the use of military force to assert control.

The well-timed trip comes weeks ahead of a scheduled Beijing summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and former U.S. President Donald Trump, adding an extra layer of geopolitical significance to cross-Strait and U.S.-China relations. Ahead of her departure, Cheng stressed to waiting reporters at Taipei International Airport that all possible efforts must be made by both sides to avoid conflict and pursue every available opening to advance cross-Strait peace.

Cheng emphasized that the core goal of her visit is to demonstrate to the global community that desire for peace is not limited to one side of the Taiwan Strait. “Through this journey for peace, I believe the world will see more clearly the sincerity and determination of the Communist Party of China Central Committee to resolve all outstanding differences between the two sides through peaceful dialogue and people-to-people exchange,” she added.

A small crowd of both supporters and critics gathered at the Taipei airport, holding contrasting signs and chanting competing slogans as Cheng prepared to depart, reflecting the deep domestic divides in Taiwan over cross-Strait engagement policy.

The visit unfolds against a backdrop of heightened tensions between Beijing, Washington, and the current ruling government in Taipei. In December of the relevant year, the Trump administration announced a $10 billion arms sales package to Taiwan, including medium-range missiles, howitzers, and reconnaissance drones — a move that drew sharp criticism and anger from Beijing.

Under Beijing’s one-China policy, all diplomatic partners of China are barred from maintaining official formal relations with Taipei. The U.S. remains Taiwan’s most powerful informal ally and primary arms supplier, and the controversial arms sale is expected to be a top agenda item during the Xi-Trump summit in Beijing.

During a February phone call between Xi and Trump, the Chinese leader made clear that “Taiwan will never be allowed to separate from China,” according to an official readout of the conversation released by the Chinese government at the time. He also urged the U.S. to exercise extreme caution when handling Taiwan arms sales issues, repeating Beijing’s long-standing position that the Taiwan question is the most sensitive and critical issue at the core of U.S.-China relations.

In recent months, Beijing has ramped up military pressure on Taiwan, deploying warplanes and naval vessels near the island on an almost daily basis and holding two large-scale joint military exercises around its borders. The most recent major exercise, held in December immediately following the announcement of the U.S. arms sale, included coordinated live-fire drills involving air force, navy, and long-range missile units. The U.S. State Department responded at the time by condemning the drills, saying they unnecessarily raised regional tensions and calling on Beijing to halt its military pressure campaign against Taipei.

Beijing currently refuses all official engagement with Taiwan’s sitting President Lai Ching-te, whom it labels a dangerous separatist pushing for permanent separation from the mainland. Cheng’s trip also coincides with a domestic political standoff in Taipei, where the opposition-controlled legislative yuan has blocked attempts by Lai’s government to pass a $40 billion special defense budget aimed at upgrading the island’s defense capabilities.

For nearly two decades, Chinese-manufactured security cameras from major firms like Hikvision and Dahua Technology have quietly permeated critical infrastructure, government buildings and military installations across North America, Europe and dozens of nations worldwide. Marketed as affordable, high-quality public safety and traffic monitoring tools, these devices have long been suspected of serving a secondary purpose: enabling state-aligned surveillance that critics warn erodes national sovereignty and enables digital control. What was once a quiet challenge of embedded fixed surveillance has now evolved into a more mobile, harder-to-detect threat, according to national security analysts, following successive bans on Chinese camera technology by Western governments.

The roots of the current espionage landscape stretch back to China’s 2003 launch of its Safe City program, a domestic initiative that built a nationwide network of internet-connected cameras integrated with facial recognition, license plate tracking and artificial intelligence to enable large-scale social and political control. In the decades that followed, China exported this entire surveillance ecosystem to more than 25 countries across Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, with Hikvision and Dahua serving as the primary hardware suppliers. Even as late as 2018, long after security concerns were first raised, a sole-source contract for Hikvision cameras at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, raised urgent questions about embedded vulnerabilities in Chinese hardware. Investigations soon revealed that both Hikvision and Dahua cameras built with backdoor access that allowed unauthorized remote access, effectively opening a gateway for foreign hackers to infiltrate networked surveillance systems.

What began as a concern over compromised cameras at a single diplomatic outpost quickly expanded into a full-blown national security issue for the U.S. It was revealed that Chinese-manufactured cameras had been deployed across dozens of U.S. military bases and federal government facilities, creating a widespread surveillance risk. By 2019, the U.S. passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which mandated the removal of all Hikvision and Dahua equipment from federal facilities, and banned new purchases of the technology for government use. Other Western nations followed with similar restrictions.

But the ban triggered an unexpected shift in how Chinese-linked espionage operates, the report by former U.S. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Stephen Bryen reveals. In place of fixed cameras that can be identified and removed, China has increasingly turned to unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) to conduct surveillance on sensitive Western sites. This shift aligns almost perfectly with the timeline of U.S. restrictions: a sharp rise in unauthorized drone incursions over military and critical infrastructure sites began immediately after the 2019 camera ban went into effect.

Recent high-profile incursions underscore the scale of the new threat. In March 2026, repeated unauthorized drone flights were recorded over Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana during the loading of B-52 bombers for a deployment linked to operations in Iran. Just weeks earlier, unidentified drones were spotted over Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. — home to senior U.S. defense and diplomatic officials — triggering White House emergency meetings and elevated security protocols. In 2023, Langley Air Force Base, the headquarters of the U.S. Air Force’s Air Combat Command, recorded 17 consecutive nights of unauthorized drone flights over its flight line, with swarms of up to 15 drones, some as large as small cars, documented. Even as far back as 2019, dozens of unidentified drones shadowed a U.S. Navy warship fleet off the coast of Southern California for weeks, with investigators ultimately linking the incursion to a Hong Kong-flagged cargo vessel. Across the U.S. in late 2024, the Pentagon confirmed that hundreds of unauthorized drone incursions were recorded over sensitive defense sites in a two-month window, even as thousands of other drone flights were authorized by the FAA.

Beyond the shift to drones, the past year has revealed how vulnerabilities in Chinese surveillance hardware have been exploited by Western intelligence agencies themselves in operations abroad. In Venezuela, where Hikvision and Dahua cameras built a nationwide surveillance network for the Nicolas Maduro regime, U.S. Cyber Command pre-loaded malware into the camera network years in advance, creating hidden “shadow administrator” accounts that allowed real-time surveillance of Maduro in the lead-up to Operation Absolute Resolve. U.S. intelligence was able to track every detail of Maduro’s daily movement, residence, travel schedule, and even identify his personal pets, according to comments by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine in early 2026.

A similar operation unfolded in Iran, where Israeli intelligence hacked a vast network of Chinese-supplied cameras across Tehran to track senior Iranian regime leaders. By mapping movement patterns of bodyguards and drivers via cameras on residential streets, parking lots and shift change locations, Israeli analysts were able to pinpoint the schedule of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, enabling a strike that killed Khamenei and other top leaders in February 2026. Hikvision and Dahua cameras are the most widely deployed surveillance hardware across Iranian cities, where the regime used Chinese technology to build what analysts call a “digital iron curtain” for internal control; a third Chinese firm, Tiandy, supplied specialized low-light facial recognition cameras to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The high-profile compromises of Chinese surveillance systems in Venezuela and Iran have triggered internal upheaval within China’s top surveillance firms. In April 2026, reports emerged that Chinese authorities had arrested 300 Hikvision employees on allegations of espionage-related failures, according to reporting from Chinese-Canadian dissident journalist Sheng Xue, who has long documented China’s export of surveillance technology. The arrests come after waves of mass layoffs and corporate restructuring at Hikvision in 2024 and 2025, which were initially attributed to financial pressures, though analysts now suspect internal political purges linked to the failures of Chinese surveillance and defense technology in overseas operations. It is widely reported that Chinese leadership is alarmed by the repeated compromise of Chinese-supplied systems, raising questions about ongoing internal accountability for the breaches.

For the United States, the threat remains far from resolved. While the federal government has moved to remove banned Chinese cameras from military and government facilities, millions of previously imported Hikvision and Dahua cameras remain in use by private businesses, commercial property owners and non-government organizations across the country. Even more concerning is the prevalence of Chinese-designed components hidden in domestic-branded products: the 2026 compliance challenge centers on Chinese-built Systems on a Chip (SoC) and firmware that appear in third-party cameras, which still carry the same security vulnerabilities. In early April 2026, the Federal Communications Commission proposed expanding existing restrictions to implement a full ban on all imports of Hikvision and Dahua-related equipment, moving beyond the existing ban on new models to cover all imports.

The rise of drone-based surveillance has created an entirely new set of challenges that the U.S. has yet to address. Modern low-cost drones can be linked to satellite communications networks like Starlink, enabling high-resolution 4K video streaming and high-speed data transfer from anywhere in the country. Drones can not only capture imagery of sensitive installations, but also detect unsecure mobile phone signals from base personnel, harvest personal and professional data from those devices, and even plant spyware that enables long-term tracking of service members. Even for unclassified mobile devices, the data available — including names, contact information, travel schedules, and photos of personnel — creates significant long-term counterintelligence risks.

Ironically, the successful push to remove vulnerable fixed Chinese cameras has cleared the way for a more agile, harder-to-counter threat. “We are just at the beginning of the drone war here at home,” Bryen argues, noting that the Pentagon has yet to develop a comprehensive national strategy to counter repeated unauthorized incursions. As drones can be launched from remote locations, hidden in cargo, and operated by cross-border teams, the threat is expected to grow in coming years as restrictions on Chinese fixed surveillance technology continue to expand globally.

Seven weeks into the joint US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, US President Donald Trump has issued a stark ultimatum to Tehran: meet Washington’s preconditions for a negotiated settlement by 8 p.m. Washington local time Tuesday, or face the full obliteration of Iran’s core national infrastructure, including its energy grids, communications networks, and civilian water systems. The escalated rhetoric comes as Iranian officials have repeatedly rejected US overtures, insisting Tehran retains meaningful battlefield leverage and that Washington cannot be trusted to honor any diplomatic agreement.

Trump first laid out the aggressive threat during remarks to reporters at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll on Monday. “We are obliterating that country, and I hate to do it, but we’re obliterating [them] and they just don’t want to say ‘uncle’. They don’t want to cry, as the expression goes, ‘uncle’, but they will. And if they don’t, they’ll have no bridges, they’ll have no power plants, they’ll have no anything,” the president told assembled media.

When a reporter pressed Trump on whether such a deliberate attack on civilian infrastructure would qualify as a war crime under international law, Trump justified the threat by claiming the Iranian government had killed 45,000 people in recent weeks. No independent verification of this claim has been possible; Iranian authorities have reported just under 4,000 total deaths linked to mass anti-government protests that began in January, a figure that includes both civilian protesters and slain police officers. Undeterred by the lack of corroboration, Trump doubled down on his denunciation, calling Iranians “animals” that must be stopped, and falsely claimed that Iranian civilians “want to hear bombs because they want to be free.”

The 1949 Geneva Conventions explicitly ban deliberate attacks on infrastructure that cuts off civilian access to basic survival needs, a provision that would cover the targets Trump threatened to destroy.

Speaking on a virtual panel hosted by the Executive Intelligence Review earlier Monday, Iran’s ambassador to Armenia Khalil Shirgolami pushed back against Washington’s maximalist demands, arguing that Trump’s aggressive approach is fundamentally nonviable. “President Trump had, several times, the chance to find a real solution and political settlement for the nuclear issue of Iran, and at least two times he betrayed diplomacy and he betrayed the negotiating table, and he bombed the negotiation table, actually,” Shirgolami said. “The United States is not in a position in terms of the battlefield operation to be putting all those preconditions.”

Shirgolami’s remarks referenced Washington’s previously proposed 15-point peace framework, which was transmitted to Tehran via Pakistani intermediaries last month. The US proposal is reported to require Iran to completely end all uranium enrichment activities and fully dismantle its domestic missile program, demands Iran has repeatedly rejected.

Pakistan, which has mediated quiet backchannel talks between the two sides, presented a new tentative peace framework dubbed the “Islamabad Accords” to both Washington and Tehran on Monday. The new proposal outlines a two-stage process: it calls for an immediate ceasefire first, followed by negotiations to finalize a full comprehensive agreement within a 15 to 20-day window. Shirgolami confirmed that Iran rejects a standalone temporary ceasefire, instead demanding a permanent end to all US and Israeli aggression, the establishment of a joint international mechanism to secure unimpeded trade passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and full compensation for all damage and losses caused by the ongoing conflict.

Prior to Trump’s press conference at the Easter Egg Roll, Shirgolami noted that Iran’s strategic approach to negotiations is rooted in the proverb “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” explaining that Washington has repeatedly broken past commitments, so it cannot be trusted without ironclad guarantees. “We need to go for a new equation, in which I mean, in that equation, there will be real guarantees for non-aggression against Iran, for preserving Iran’s rights, for the nuclear, peaceful energy and enrichment,” he added.

During Monday’s Easter event, Trump also told reporters that if his policy decisions were not constrained by the will of the American public, he would simply seize Iran’s oil reserves for US profit. “It’s there for the taking. There’s not a thing they can do about it. Unfortunately, the American people would like to see us come home. If it were up to me, I’d take the oil. I’d keep the oil and would make plenty of money,” he said. When pressed on the comment later in the White House briefing room, Trump defended the framing by noting “I’m a businessman first.”

Expanding on his vision for a post-deal settlement, Trump also floated the idea of the US seizing full control of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of global oil trade passes. When a reporter asked if Trump would accept ending the conflict in exchange for the right to charge tolls for vessels passing through the Strait, Trump responded: “What about us charging? I’d rather do that than let them [or] have them run it. Why shouldn’t we? We’re the winner. We won. Okay? They are militarily defeated.”

Currently, the Strait of Hormuz remains operational under Iranian control, which operates a three-tiered access system: vessels from countries friendly to Iran are granted free routine passage, vessels from neutral countries that pay a fee denominated in Chinese yuan are also allowed through, but all ships linked to the US and Israel are barred from transiting. Trump reiterated Monday that any final deal must guarantee unimpeded, free passage for all global oil and commercial traffic through the waterway.

When asked about the newly proposed Islamabad Accords ceasefire framework, Trump told reporters he “can’t talk about the ceasefire” but claimed “we have a willing participant on the other side” referring to Iran. That claim directly contradicts Shirgolami’s confirmation that Iran rejects any temporary ceasefire proposal that does not include pre-agreed commitments to end aggression permanently and provide security guarantees.

A fresh global survey conducted by leading U.S. analytics and advisory firm Gallup has revealed a striking shift in global perceptions of international leadership: for the third time in modern history, China holds a higher global approval rating for its leadership than the United States, with the 5-point gap marking the widest advantage for China recorded in nearly two decades.

The end-of-2025 survey gathered responses from over 130 countries and regions worldwide, calculating median approval rates across all participating areas. It found that 36% of respondents approved of China’s global leadership, compared to just 31% who approved of U.S. leadership. This result marks a sharp reversal from 2024, when U.S. leadership held a 7-point advantage: U.S. approval plummeted 8 percentage points from 39% in 2024 to 31% in 2025, while China’s approval rose 4 points over the same period, climbing from 32% to 36%.

The only previous occasions Gallup recorded China leading the U.S. in global leadership approval were during the George W. Bush administration (2001–2009) and Donald Trump’s first presidential term (2017–2021). To capture a more nuanced view of global sentiment, Gallup calculated results using “net approval”—the share of approving respondents minus the share of disapproving respondents. For 2025, the U.S. posted a median net approval score of negative 15, the lowest figure the firm has ever recorded for the country.

Most notably, the drop in U.S. approval was most severe among America’s closest traditional allies. Across 31 NATO member states, median approval of U.S. leadership fell 14 percentage points to just 21%. Germany saw the sharpest single-country decline globally, with approval dropping 39 points, followed closely by Portugal with a 38-point drop.

Gallup emphasizes that the 2025 survey was completed before two major 2026 geopolitical developments: the U.S. withdrawal from 66 international organizations in January, and the outbreak of armed conflict between the U.S. and Iran in late February. Experts warn that if the poll were conducted today, U.S. approval would likely fall even further.

“If the survey was conducted now, after the U.S. attacks on Iran and Venezuela, it is likely that the global U.S. approval ratings would be even lower, given that most people around the world would agree that the U.S. actions are illegitimate and violate international law,” explained Zhu Zhiqun, professor of political science and international relations and director of Bucknell University’s China Institute.

The Iran conflict has already exposed deep rifts within the U.S.-led alliance system. U.S. European allies have publicly criticized Washington for launching military action without prior consultation, while Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states face direct economic risk from Iranian retaliatory measures. Abram Paley, nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, noted in a late March analysis that the conflict could reshape long-term security partnerships in the region.

“Depending on the outcome of this conflict, some Gulf countries may develop concerns about U.S. reliability as an economic and security partner,” Paley wrote. “If this happens, some GCC countries might then choose to reinforce their partnership options beyond the United States by strengthening ties with Russia and China — perhaps economically at first, but potentially also strategically.”

Gallup’s long-term data shows that U.S. leadership approval has fluctuated dramatically across different presidential administrations. The highest U.S. global approval rating on record, 49%, was recorded in 2009 during Barack Obama’s presidency, while the previous low of 30% was registered during the first and final years of Trump’s first term.

The survey’s research team framed the 2025 results as a reflection of a fundamental, long-term restructuring of the global order. “The shifting perceptions of U.S. leadership over the past two decades reflect a world that has moved toward a more multipolar order,” the report concluded.

Zhu echoed that conclusion, noting that the latest poll provides clear empirical evidence of a permanent shift away from unipolar global governance. “The latest Gallup poll is further evidence that the world has become multipolar now, and the era of the U.S. dominance in global affairs is over,” he said.

In a landmark ruling that has sent shockwaves across India, nine sitting police officers have received death sentences for the brutal 2020 custodial killing of a father and son in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, a case that reignited national debate over endemic police brutality in the country.

The two victims, 58-year-old P Jeyaraj and his 38-year-old son Benicks, were taken into custody in June 2020 for the alleged offense of violating national Covid-19 lockdown rules by keeping their small mobile phone retail shop open past the mandated curfew. Within days of their detention, both men were dead while still in police custody.

During Monday’s sentencing hearing, the presiding judge laid bare the horrific details of the abuse the pair suffered. The judge confirmed that Jeyaraj and Benicks were stripped naked and systematically tortured in front of each other by the accused officers, in a clear violation of every principle of lawful detention. In scathing remarks directed at the convicted officers, the judge stated that the assault was carried out with explicit intent to kill, calling the incident a blatant abuse of the state authority entrusted to the men.

The judge rejected any calls for leniency, noting that all nine officers are formally educated, and that their age or personal family circumstances could not justify a reduced sentence. “They attacked unarmed civilians who posed no threat to them. They do not deserve forgiveness,” the judge added.

Last month, all nine officers were formally found guilty of murder by the court. Under Indian legal procedure, the convicted personnel retain the right to file an appeal against both the conviction and their death sentences with a higher judicial bench.

In total, 10 police officers were arrested immediately following the deaths in 2020. One of the accused died from complications related to Covid-19 later that same year, leaving nine to stand trial.

When news of the custodial deaths first emerged four years ago, the incident sparked widespread public protests across Tamil Nadu. State opposition legislators were among the first crowds to take to the streets to demand accountability for the deaths. High-profile public figures, including Congress party opposition leader Rahul Gandhi and star Indian cricketer Shikhar Dhawan, added their voices to the calls for justice via social media platforms, amplifying the national outcry.

Beyond the immediate calls for punishment, the 2020 killings pushed the long-simmering issue of custodial abuse and police brutality in India back to the center of national public discourse. Human rights organizations have documented that hundreds of people die in police or judicial custody across India every year, with many of these deaths linked to systematic torture. Rights advocates note that the use of abuse to force confessions from suspects has become a normalized, entrenched part of policing culture in many parts of the country.

Earlier in 2024, a group of independent United Nations human rights experts issued a public call for India to implement sweeping, comprehensive reforms to bring its national policing practices in line with binding international human rights standards. Tuesday’s sentencing marks one of the most high-profile convictions of police personnel for custodial killing in recent Indian history, with activists watching closely to see whether the ruling will pave the way for broader systemic changes.

Tensions between the United States and Iran escalated dramatically this week after former and current U.S. President Donald Trump issued explicit threats to carry out large-scale strikes against Iranian civilian infrastructure, drawing sharp condemnation from Iranian officials and even pushback from some members of the U.S. political and policy community.

Trump first made the incendiary remarks during an Easter Sunday interview with Fox News, where he issued an ultimatum to Iranian leadership: unless Tehran reached a new deal with Washington on his timeline and fully reopened the Strait of Hormuz by 8 p.m. ET that same day, he would order widespread bombings across the country. “You’re going to see bridges and power plants dropping all over their country,” Trump stated, adding that he was also “considering blowing everything up and taking the oil.” The threat followed an aggressive, profanity-laced post on his Truth Social platform, where he demanded Iran “open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.”

In response to the threats, top Iranian diplomatic officials have labeled Trump’s statements as open incitement to war crimes and potential genocide, citing international law to back their claims. Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, outlined the legal case against the threatened strikes in a social media post Monday, noting that deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure such as power plants and bridges are explicitly classified as war crimes under Article 8(2)(b) of the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, as well as Article 52 of Protocol I to the 1977 Geneva Conventions.

Gharibabadi emphasized that as the highest-ranking U.S. official, Trump bears individual criminal responsibility for his open threat to violate international humanitarian law, a liability that holds before both the ICC and any competent national court. He also warned that if Trump follows through on the attack, his name will be “etched in history as a supreme war criminal,” and confirmed that Iran would deliver a “decisive, immediate, and regret-inducing response” to any aggression.

Esmail Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, echoed that condemnation, calling Trump’s threats evidence of “a criminal mindset.” Speaking to reporters Sunday, Baghaei called the comments “an express public incitement for war crimes and crimes against humanity—and, I would say, for genocide.” He added that threatening attacks on a nation’s critical energy infrastructure amounts to putting the entire civilian population at deliberate risk of harm.

The threats come amid an ongoing U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran that began on February 28, which has already caused extensive damage to Iranian civilian and public service facilities. Iran’s deputy health minister confirmed Monday that more than 360 healthcare, education, and research centers have been damaged or destroyed in strikes to date, with dozens of medical personnel killed in the attacks.

Critics within the United States have also joined Iranian officials in decrying Trump’s threatened strikes as unlawful war crimes. U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, criticized the administration’s underlying strategy, which reportedly calls for striking civilian sites to spark public unrest and force regime change. “But just think about the insanity of this plan: kill tens of thousands of civilians in order to cause a national panic,” Murphy wrote on social media. “Bombing to induce political panic IS A WAR CRIME.”

Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, went further, arguing that any congressional lawmaker who supports additional war funding for the conflict or opposes efforts to reassert congressional war powers limits on the administration would be complicit in the threatened and already committed war crimes. He called Trump an “unhinged and unfit Commander in Chief.”

The sharp escalation of rhetoric comes as quiet diplomatic efforts, partially mediated by Pakistan, are underway to negotiate a 45-day ceasefire that would create space for longer-term talks to end the ongoing conflict. Axios has reported that the ongoing diplomatic push is viewed by mediators as “the only chance to prevent a dramatic escalation in the war that will include massive strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure and a retaliation against energy and water facilities in the Gulf states.”