Podcast Summary: Trump threatens to ‘take out’ Iran … again – The Latest
Podcast: Today in Focus, The Guardian
Host: Lucy Hough
Guest: Julian Borger (Senior International Correspondent, The Guardian)
Date: April 7, 2026
Duration: ≈10 minutes
Overview
This short-form episode of “Today in Focus: The Latest” examines the heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran amid President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to decimate Iranian infrastructure unless Iran agrees to end the ongoing conflict and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Host Lucy Hough and correspondent Julian Borger discuss the extreme rhetoric, the legality and implications of the threats, the removal of U.S. military guardrails, and why diplomatic efforts—especially those spearheaded by regional powers—remain stalemated.
Key Discussion Points
1. Trump’s Ultimatum and Escalatory Rhetoric
[00:42, 01:11, 02:03, 02:31]
- Julian Borger characterizes Trump’s repeated threats as “like Groundhog Day, but the groundhog just keeps getting bigger and uglier.”
- Trump issued an ultimatum over the weekend: Iran must reopen the Strait of Hormuz, or face devastation of key infrastructure (bridges, power plants; “power plant day, bridge day...all wrapped up in one”).
- The president’s Truth Social post was described as one of the most extraordinary and expletive-laden statements ever seen from a president, even ending with “praise be to Allah.”
- Growing concerns are voiced about Trump’s “mental stability” and the increasing desperation and frustration in his tone.
Quote:
"It was telling Iran, open the effing Hormuz Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in hell. And then rounded it off with praise be to Allah." – Julian Borger [02:03]
2. Legality and War Crime Implications
[03:53, 04:44, 05:27]
- Borger explains that targeting a country’s civilian infrastructure to pressure regime change constitutes a clear war crime under the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military law.
- There is no debate among military lawyers that such actions against a civilian population’s life support would be illegal.
- Lucy Hough raises the issue of accountability and the removal of legal constraints within the U.S. administration.
Quote:
"It is very much an attempt to target the civilian population as a way of pressuring a government into surrendering. And under the Geneva Conventions, under US military law, that is a war crime. It is clear cut." – Julian Borger [03:53]
3. Removal of U.S. Military Guardrails
[05:27, 06:16]
- Trump’s Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has spent the past year purging legal advisors and constraints within the Pentagon, notably the Judge Advocate General’s office and the unit established under Biden to limit civilian harm.
- Hegseth has been explicit that the military’s focus is now “100% on lethality,” doing away with any remaining roadblocks or oversight mechanisms.
Quote:
"Hegseth has explicitly said, we don't want any of these roadblocks on what we can do. We are completely 100% focused on lethality. So he's been open about wishing to get rid of the constraints to get rid of all those guardrails. And now they're gone." – Julian Borger [05:27]
4. Iranian Response and Regional Risks
[06:49, 07:10, 07:22]
- Iran has made clear it would escalate if attacked, targeting oil-producing and desalination facilities in the Gulf—critical infrastructure for both the region and global markets.
- Damage to oil production could have long-term consequences, potentially causing a major economic and energy crisis.
Quote:
"What is quite likely is they will attack some of the targets in the Gulf that up to now they've held back from, which are some of the oil producing facilities, maybe desalination facilities." – Julian Borger [06:49]
5. Diplomatic Efforts and Deadlock
[07:44, 08:19, 09:13]
- Regional actors (Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey) are attempting to mediate a ceasefire, but Trump’s aggressive tactics are undermining these diplomatic efforts.
- Tehran is insisting on a long-term, internationally ratified settlement rather than a temporary or ad hoc agreement, largely due to distrust in Trump’s commitments.
- The stand-off continues, with neither side making tangible gains.
6. The “Groundhog Day” Stalemate
[09:13, 09:36, 09:44, 09:47]
- Trump has repeatedly extended his deadline for Iranian compliance, with threats continuing but little substantial change on the ground.
- Borger suggests that Trump’s credibility is on the line, raising the stakes with each threat.
- The risk: A misstep could result in mutual escalation, deeper crises, and significant consequences for both the U.S. and Iran.
Quote:
“He keeps digging the hole deeper for himself.” – Julian Borger [09:47]
Memorable Quotes & Moments
- Julian Borger on escalating rhetoric:
“It was like Groundhog Day, but the groundhog just keeps getting bigger and uglier because he's doubled down or tripled down on this.” [00:42]
- On legality:
“That would almost certainly be a war crime... The question is, is there anyone left in the room now who can say no to Donald Trump?” [03:53]
- On Pentagon changes:
“Now they're gone.” (referring to guardrails and legal constraints) [06:16]
- On potential for further crisis:
“If Iran strikes back, the oil price rockets again, Trump is in even worse trouble and so he keeps digging the hole deeper for himself.” [09:47]
Important Segment Timestamps
- 00:42 – Introduction of Trump’s latest threats, “Groundhog Day” analogy
- 02:03 – Details of the expletive-laden Truth Social post
- 03:53 – Legal assessment: targeting infrastructure as war crime
- 05:27 – Pentagon purges and loss of legal/internal constraints
- 06:49 – Iran’s likely retaliation and risks to Gulf infrastructure
- 07:44 – Diplomatic mediation efforts
- 09:44 – Repeated deadlines and deepening impasse
Concluding Notes
The episode underscores the volatility and unpredictability at the heart of today’s U.S.-Iran crisis, amplified by extreme presidential rhetoric and the removal of institutional checks within the U.S. military. Regional diplomatic efforts persist, but are constantly undermined by inflammatory U.S. messaging and ongoing mistrust. Borger and Hoff agree: another escalation could trigger not just regional, but global, consequences.