Genocidal Intent, and the Quiet Deaths of Millions

Donald Trump’s early April statements of genocidal intent in the war he has waged against Iran have rightly received a great deal of attention—though no major news outlets I’m aware of have dared to describe them as “genocidal.” On April 1 Trump made the following statement: “We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We are going to bring them back to the stone ages where they belong.” That was not an offhand remark made in haste through a tweet on Truth Social; the words were part of a prime time address to the nation, and are recorded in the official White House transcript. A few days later (on April 7) he threatened similar action: unless Iran reopened the Strait of Hormuz by midnight that night, he declared, “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

Is it going too far to describe such words as statements of genocidal intent? A good many respected authorities have judged that it is not—among them Mathias Risse of Harvard University’s Center for Human Rights: “Trump’s statement,” Risse has written, “is the clearest case of declared genocidal intent in modern international criminal law.”

It’s worth comparing Trump’s words with the words that have been used by others inciting genocide. “If international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will be not the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe,” Hitler declared on 30 January 1939.” All Tutsis should be "erased from human memory" and "wiped from the surface of the earth," blared radio broadcasts in Rwanda in 1993. The similarities are all too clear.

No one suggests that Trump and Hegseth will kill as many in Iran as the 800,000 who were killed in the Rwanda genocide or the 6,000,000 who were killed in Europe in the Holocaust.

Trump’s other actions, though, may result in the quiet deaths of many more. The most heinous action of the Trump administration—among seemingly endless heinous actions—may may be the decision early on to quickly and brutally shut down America’s foreign aid programs. One report—from the Harvard School of Public Health—estimates that the USAID shutdown has already led to hundreds of thousands of deaths (https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hundreds-of-thousands-of-deaths/); another—from an equally reputable source, the Lancet—estimates that the shutdown may well result in 14,000,000 deaths by 2030. (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2jjpm7zv8o ).

Quiet deaths from starvation or from lack of essential medicines may not have the worldwide emotional impact that deaths associated with the word “genocide” always seem to carry. But the millions of people dying probably won’t care what words are used to describe the horror.

These, of course, are not deaths in places that the likes of Trump have been in the habit of recognizing as “civilizations.” The great civilizations of Benin, or of the Mali empire, or of Great Zimbabwe are ones that Trump and the world of MAGA seem entirely unaware of. Their traditions are the traditions of what Trump, in one of the most horrific statements of his first administration, called “shithole countries.” Who really cares if people in those sorts of places die in record numbers?

If we do care, we should do more than care; we should press rich world governments not to follow Trump in cutting foreign aid—and we should give as generously as we can to every aid agency that is working to save the people that the Trump administration is happy to let die.

Iran, 1953: Eisenhower, Churchill, Mosaddegh

In discussing the history of US-Iran relations in the context of the current war, many media accounts go back as far as the upheavals of 1979—the overthrowing of the Shah, the installation of an Islamist regime, and the American embassy hostage crisis. Few, sad to say, go back as far as upheavals of 1952-53—the nationalization of the oil industry by Iran’s democratically elected government, led by Mohammad Mosaddegh; the attempts by Winston Churchill’s British government to persuade the US to help them overthrow that government; and the overthrow itself. In the October 9, 1953 entry in his diary, American President Dwight Eisenhower reflected on the nature of what his government (together with Churchill’s government) had done:

The things we did were “covert.” If knowledge of them became public, we would not only be embarrassed in that region, but our chances [of doing] anything of like nature in the future would almost completely disappear.

Knowledge of what they had done did eventually become public, and historians are nowadays all in agreement as to the basic facts. The summary in Brittanica says it well enough:

In 1951 … the Iranian parliament, led by Mosaddegh’s nationalist and democratically elected government, voted to nationalize the country’s oil industry. Seeing its interests thus threatened, the UK embarked on a secret campaign to weaken and destabilize Mosaddegh. At first the British government tried to convince the shah to remove Mosaddegh from office by engineering a parliamentary decree, a ploy that both failed and enhanced Mosaddegh’s reputation while diminishing the shah’s. When the push to remove Mosaddegh evolved into the idea of a coup to overthrow the government, Britain, reluctant to shoulder the responsibility alone, persuaded the U.S. to join forces by playing on Cold War fears that Mosaddegh, an avowed anticommunist, was aligning himself with Tudeh, the Iranian Communist Party.

The United States took the leading role in a covert operation, called Operation Ajax, whereby CIA-funded agents were used to foment unrest inside Iran by way of the harassment of religious and political leaders and a media disinformation campaign. These efforts, formally approved by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, came to a head in August 1953 when Mosaddegh and his government were overthrown and Mohammad Reza, a pro-Western monarch, was returned to power.

It’s no wonder that resentment of America runs deep in Iran.

An interesting footnote to all this is how Churchill has almost entirely escaped blame for his part in the coup. Notice in the Brittanica summary that Eisenhower is named, but Churchill isn’t; that omission is entirely typical of most accounts of the coup. The American presidents who appear in the standard narrative (Truman, and then Eisenhower) are identified by name, but the British Prime Minister is not. In this as in a number of other respects (notably, the Bengal famine of 1943, in which Churchill withheld relief supplies in a famine that killed millions), Churchill remains history’s Teflon leader, remembered above all for the undeniable greatness of his leadership in 1940, while somehow sloughing off any close association with less flattering episodes.

The Woman Problem at the London Review of Books

I sent this letter to the London Review of Books March 22. At this point it likely won't be published--though the LRB did publish a couple of other letters on Seamus Perry's article in their 19 March issue; together they mention or reference eleven male writers, and no women.* The LRB remains in many ways a wonderful publication, but when it comes to a fair representation of women it sometimes feels fifty years behind the times. Or indeed a hundred years.

It is an extraordinary irony that, in an article on modern ideas of pluralism and diversity and on the “quality of sheer plenitude” in modern poetry (LRB, 19 February), Seamus Perry devotes twenty-three of his twenty-four paragraphs entirely to the writings of white males, all of them British or American (or, in the case of Auden and Gunn, a bit of both). The exception is the fifteenth of the twenty-four, which is also mostly devoted to the writings of British and American white males (Robert Browning chief among them), but which includes seven-words quoted from Elizabeth Bishop and six-words quoted from Dorothy Parker.

One wishes that Perry had either given a much narrower title to the piece or—better still—taken the time to dip into the work of a much wider range of modern poets. From Rossetti’s “Goblin Market” all the way to Brooks’s “The Lovers of the Poor” and beyond, there’s a wondrous range of “sheer plenitude” to be discovered. Much of it of high quality, and much of it of real interest—possibly even to white male writers at Balliol.**

*An extended quote from Chas and Dave's 1982 song "That's What I Like" is offered by one letter writer as a fine example of verse that evokes the "rich ordinariness of the modern world." They're nice enough lines, but nowehere near as nice as lines from any one of dozens of Carol Ann Duffy poems that evoke the rich ordinariness of the modern world.

**Seamus Perry, a professor of English literature at Oxford, was elected in May 2025 to become Master of Balliol College in July 2026.

Letter to the Globe: The Joy of Children - and of Parenting

The Globe and Mail published this letter February 21.

Re “Policy Alone Won't Fix Canada's Fertility Crisis": (14 February): Robyn Urbach is so right when she calls for not only a range of child-friendly and parent-friendly policy changes but also an attitudinal change—less emphasis on the costs of having children and the burdens of having children (real though those certainly are), and much more emphasis on the many ways in which raising children is a wonderful experience. Children are indeed a joy—and so is parenthood.