EXPLAINER

A look at the US military presence in Europe as Trump seeks to withdraw troops from Germany

US President Donald Trump's abrupt decision to withdraw thousands of troops from Germany has refocused attention on the US military presence in Europe, which not only acts as a deterrent to Russia but also allows Washington to project US power across the globe. Here's a look at the current American military deployment in Europe and the possible implications of Trump's move.


Issued on: 04/05/2026 
By: FRANCE 24

Planes are seen at the US military airbase in Ramstein near Landstuhl, Germany, on July 20, 2020. © Kai Pfaffenbach, Reuters file photo

US President Donald Trump’s vow to shrink America's military deployment in Germany has put a new spotlight on the US role in Europe.

There are usually 80,000 to 100,000 troops on the continent, with more than 36,000 in Germany. The Pentagon announced Friday that it would remove 5,000 troops from Germany, and Trump said the next day that he would go “a lot further” than that.

The US military presence is a legacy of World War II, when Americans helped stabilize and rebuild Europe, and the Cold War, when the troops served as a bulwark against Soviet expansion. More recently, the deployment has played a key role supporting operations in the Arctic, Africa and the Middle East including the current conflict with Iran.

But Trump has broken with years of bipartisan consensus, criticizing European allies in NATO and following through on threats to reduce the US commitment to the continent's security. The recent announcement comes after escalating tensions with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who last week said the US was being “humiliated” by Iran and accusing Washington of lacking a clear strategy.

Here's a look at America's current deployment in Europe and how it could change.

The US European Command, created in 1947 and known as EUCOM, is one of 11 combat commands within the Defense Department, and covers some 50 countries and territories.

In addition to more than 36,000 troops in Germany, Italy hosts more than 12,000 and there's another 10,000 in the United Kingdom, according to Pentagon numbers from December.

The Pentagon has offered few details about which troops or operations would be affected in the drawdown announced Friday.

© France 24
01:48

The US increased its European deployment after Russia launched its full-scale war on Ukraine four years ago. NATO allies like Germany have expected for over a year that these troops would be the first to leave.

Aside from its role as a deterrent to Russia, the US military presence in Europe helps Washington project power across the globe.

US Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, who is the commander in Europe of both US and NATO forces, reinforced the benefits of a strong footprint on the continent to the Senate Armed Services Committee in March.

“It is having capabilities in Europe, munitions in Europe that allow us to help US Africa Command to target terrorists in Africa, or to help US Central Command as they execute Operation Epic Fury,” he told lawmakers, referring to the Iran war. “The distances are shorter, it’s less expensive and it’s much easier to project power.”

Germany hosts the headquarters of the US European and Africa commands, Ramstein Air Base and a medical center in Landstuhl, where casualties from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were treated. US nuclear weapons are also stationed in the country.

How dependent are Europe's militaries on the US?

The US has approximately 100 nuclear bombs deployed to bases in Europe that would be delivered by aircraft, according to a March estimate from the Federation of American Scientists. The group's report said the bombs are at bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, while it’s possible they’re also at a base in the United Kingdom.

Even before Trump's comment Saturday to reporters, Republican leaders of both armed services committees in Congress expressed concern about the Pentagon plan, warning a premature drawdown in Europe would send “the wrong signal to Vladimir Putin” as the Russian president continues his war in Ukraine.

Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama said troops should be shifted to bases in Eastern Europe rather than withdrawn.

The lawmakers also said allies have made “substantial investments to host US troops.”

Wicker and Rogers said the Pentagon, following its announcement Friday, has also decided to cancel the planned deployment to Germany of one of the US Army’s long-range fires battalions, which operate ground-launched missile systems.

As part of its National Defense Strategy announced in January – a sweeping document laying out a vision on everything from deterring China to defending against cyberattacks to disrupting Iran's nuclear ambitions – the administration said Europe must do more for its own defense.

While "we are and will remain engaged in Europe, we must – and will – prioritize defending the US Homeland and deterring China,” it said.

Among other things, the document noted that Europe's economic power, while shrinking in relative terms globally, remains significant, and said that Germany's economy alone “dwarfs that of Russia."

US troop withdrawal from Germany would be 'foolish', expert says

© France 24
09:55

“Fortunately, our NATO allies are substantially more powerful than Russia – it is not even close,” it said, noting a recent commitment among NATO allies to raise national defense spending to 5% of GDP in total, a push led by Trump.

Germany has moved to modernize its long-neglected military, or Bundeswehr, since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That year, it set up a 100 billion euro ($117 billion) special fund to boost Bundeswehr, much of which has been committed to procuring new equipment.

Late last year, Merz's government announced plans to raise the number of military personnel to 260,000, up from about 180,000. In 2001, when Germany still had conscription, the headcount was 300,000 – more than a third of them conscripts.

Berlin says it will also need around 200,000 reservists, more than double the current figure.

Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, in comments to German news agency dpa after the Pentagon's drawdown plan was announced Friday, acknowledged that Europe must take more responsibility for its own security – and said the Bundeswehr is growing, military equipment is being procured more quickly, and infrastructure is being developed.

(FRANCE 24 with AP)

'No strategy' behind Trump's withdrawal of NATO troops from Germany, sources say

Copyright Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

By Shona Murray

Published on 03/05/2026 - EURONEWS

Trump did not warn allies prior to his abrupt announcement of the withdrawal of 5,000 active-duty troops from Germany. The sudden move came amid an ongoing feud with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, sparked by his criticism of the US' war in Iran, and Washington's strategy.

Senior NATO officials were not warned about US President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany within the next 6-12 months prior to the Pentagon's announcement on Friday.

Questions about logistics such as from where and how the troops will be withdrawn have risen. It's also unclear how the decision will impact the defence alliance's overall force posture, several sources with knowledge of the situation have told Euronews.

Trump on Saturday added that troop presence in Germany will be reduced "a lot further" than the initally announced 5,000, but the Republican president did not detail how much further or when those reductions are to be expected.

According to sources, the announcement which took senior NATO command by surprise is short on detail. Washington has not detailed whether the troops who'll be departing Germany are from a rotation that won't be replenished, an air squadron or if the troops are part of the core unit.

"We don't know what are these forces is it the core of a brigade? an air squadron?" former US ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder told Euronews.

"There is no detail because Trump just made this number up,” another US source told Euronews.

Military planners are minimising the bearing at least 5,000 fewer US military personnel will have on Europe's security posture, given the changing nature of warfare which relies less on soldiers and more on technology and advanced weaponry.

Moreover, several European allies, especially Germany, have substantially bolstered their own defences over the last year. NATO countries have been bracing for a potential US troop presence review, which they knew could happen at any moment.

Nonetheless, they had expected to be consulted ahead of any such decision directly impacting European security and NATO territory.

The view from NATO capitals is that an orderly, collaborative disengagement of US forces would take place, where allies fully abreast of the situation would avoid serious disruption to NATO's deterrence capabilities.

NATO officials are drawing conclusions about the timing of the announcement after Trump took umbrage at comments made by German Chancellor Frederic Merz who said days earlier that Iran was “humiliating” the United States, and that Washington had went into war with an ill-conceived strategy.

“The figure of 5,000 is a top-line number that Trump took out of the sky because he wanted to do something demonstrative as part of his confrontation with Merz,” a US source told Euronews.

Trump posted an initial statement on Wednesday night after Merz's remarks saying the Pentagon was “studying” how to reduce US presence in Germany, and later adding that “the Chancellor of Germany should spend more time on ending the war with Russia/Ukraine ... and fixing his broken Country.”

Hours later, Chief Pentagon Spokesperson Sean Parnell told Fox News that the Secretary of War has “ordered the withdrawal of approximately 5,000 troops from Germany.”

The White House has also been furious at European allies for rejecting Trump's calls to join in the war in Iran. Trump has taken aim and some of them, as well as the NATO alliance itself, describing it as a “paper tiger.”

“Let’s just say it was a very short space of time between Trump’s first post saying he was “studying” how to draw down troops after the feud with Merz, and then the sudden announcement,” another NATO source told Euronews.

Meanwhile, Allison Hart, a spokesperson for NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, issued a statement saying “we are working with the US to understand the details. This adjustment underscores the need for Europe to invest more in defence and take on a greater share of the responsibility for our shared security.”

US troops have been heavily embedded in Germany ever since the Cold War, and today have a deployment exceeding 36,000 active-duty personnel. Their presence is regarded as more than a legacy of the Cold War, but an important projection of US power globally.

This is a matter which Daalder says the Trump administration missed. The former ambassador says Trump is missing the bigger picture in his pursuit to penalise European allies for not joining in the war in Iran.

"He thinks he can punish allies by removing troops, but he is hurting America’s interests," Daaldo said.

"He is just demonstrating that he doesn’t understand how America’s interests are served."

“He believes we have troops in Europe for the sole purpose of doing others a favour," he added, speaking to Euronews on the phone from the US. “The bottom line is that Europe is no longer first, second, third or even fourth down the list of priorities for the US."

The Feminization of Poverty: A Socialist Feminist Perspective

By Bayan Saleh

April 28, 2026

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Image by Atibrarian/Wikimediacommons, licensed via CC BY 4.0

When we speak of poverty in political or academic discourse, we often tend to treat it as a neutral phenomenon, as though it falls upon everyone equally and in the same way. Yet a critical class-based lens exposes the falsity of this supposed neutrality, affirming that poverty is not distributed evenly, and that women bear its burden in a more acute and enduring way.

This is precisely where the concept of the feminization of poverty comes in, not merely as a statistical description, but as a critical analytical tool that reveals the structural relationship between the capitalist economic system and gender relations, and the multiple forms of exclusion and marginalization that arise from both.

The concept emerged in the 1970s to describe the ongoing rise in poverty rates among women, particularly as the number of women bearing sole responsibility for supporting their families grew. Since then, it has become clear that poverty is neutral neither in terms of gender nor in terms of class, and that it is tied to power structures that determine who holds resources and who is denied them.

The latest data from UN Women indicate that 9.2% of women and girls live in extreme poverty, compared to 8.6% of men and boys, with the gap worsening in the 25 to 34 age group, where women are 25% more likely to live in extreme poverty. World Bank reports show that the global gender wage gap stands at 23%, rising to 47.9% in regions of the Global South such as South Asia. These figures confirm that poverty is not gender-neutral, yet numbers alone are insufficient for understanding what is happening, as they describe symptoms without digging into the roots.

When Exploitation Is Twofold

The feminization of poverty cannot be explained by focusing solely on the wage gap; it must be understood within the framework of a deeper economic structure that systematically reproduces gender inequality. Capitalism does not merely produce class disparity, it also reproduces gender disparity through the organization and division of labor in ways that serve the interests of capital above all else.

This is what Clara Zetkin saw with clarity when she argued that the working woman faces a twofold exploitation, neither dimension of which can be understood without the other: she is exploited as a worker paid less than a man in the labor market, and she is exploited within the family through unpaid domestic labor that guarantees the reproduction of the workforce without costing capital a single penny. Anuradha Ghandy reaffirmed this analysis, noting that this dual exploitation takes even sharper forms in Global South contexts, where class, caste, and gender intersect in a single system of domination.

One of the most important manifestations of this system is the separation between economically recognized productive labor and the unpaid labor necessary for the continuation of life. The domestic and care work performed by women forms the foundation for social reproduction, yet it receives no economic recognition, which diminishes its value and excludes women from economic independence. When socialist feminism demands recognition of this labor and its transformation into a collective responsibility, through public nurseries, care facilities, and social services, it is not calling for a partial reform. It is calling for a fundamental reorganization of the relationship between production and social reproduction at the heart of the economic system.

At the same time, women are integrated into the labor market in an unequal manner, concentrated in low-wage, precarious sectors with little stability or protection. Rather than becoming a vehicle for economic liberation, paid work frequently becomes an extension of dependency, particularly in the context of persistent wage discrimination and limited professional advancement. This situation is compounded by the double burden women carry as a result of combining paid labor with unpaid domestic work, without any fair redistribution of roles. This duality is neither a biological fate nor a culturally neutral inheritance; it is the product of a class-based economic system that needs to keep women in the position of the flexible worker who can be pushed to the margins when the market demands it, then recalled when cheap labor is needed.

Crises and Austerity: When Women Pay for Crises They Did Not Create

What makes the picture more complex is that economic crises, conflicts, and climate change deepen the feminization of poverty, with women disproportionately affected by these shifts, particularly in the most fragile societies. In a global context where economic exploitation intersects with historical forms of domination, women across vast regions of the world become more exposed to the harshest forms of poverty and marginalization.

Yet the issue does not stop at exceptional crises. The austerity policies imposed by international financial institutions on Global South countries over decades represent a glaring example of the feminization of poverty as a deliberate political decision. When public services such as education, health, and welfare are cut back, they do not disappear. Instead, their burden shifts onto women, who compensate with their bodies and time for what neoliberal policy has stripped from state budgets. Austerity, in this sense, is not a neutral policy; it is a gendered policy whose costs women pay first and most heavily.

The struggle against austerity policies and the struggle for women’s rights cannot be separated. The woman who loses access to public education when schools are privatized, the woman forced to leave work when public nurseries close, the woman who bears the care of the sick when health budgets are slashed; all of them pay the price of economic decisions made in international institutions that are neither elected nor held accountable. For this reason, confronting the feminization of poverty is inseparable from confronting the global capitalist economic system that produces and reproduces it.

This gap is equally visible in the realm of employment, where women’s participation in the labor market is lower than men’s, and where a large proportion of working women are in precarious, low-wage jobs with limited protection. Women suffer to a greater degree from food insecurity and the absence of social protection systems, a reality that deepens their economic vulnerability and makes any external shock more capable of pushing them below the threshold of subsistence.

From Diagnosis to Change: Toward Radical Policies, Not Superficial Ones

What makes this phenomenon particularly dangerous is that it is not confined to individual suffering; its effects extend to household welfare, contribute to the intergenerational reproduction of poverty, and constrain development potential by marginalizing women’s roles and excluding their economic and social contributions. The feminization of poverty thus becomes an expression of a structural dysfunction requiring radical treatment, not partial solutions that soothe symptoms without touching the roots.

This is where the divide between the class perspective of socialist feminism and liberal reformist feminism becomes apparent. Liberal currents limit themselves to demanding women’s empowerment within the existing system without challenging its structure, focusing on individual empowerment through education, training, and access to microfinance. The socialist feminist perspective, by contrast, holds that these tools are insufficient unless accompanied by fundamental change in relations of production, property, and power. The woman who obtains a small loan in a society that excludes her from education, burdens her with unpaid domestic work, and subjects her to precarious labor laws remains a prisoner of the same structure, even if her situation improves marginally.

Confronting this phenomenon demands policies grounded in both gender equality and the elimination of class exploitation together. This includes achieving wage equality, guaranteeing women’s legal rights at work, broadening social protection to cover the most vulnerable groups, and investing in education and training to economically empower women. It also requires recognition of the economic value of care work, the provision of public services that reduce its burden, and a redistribution of roles within the family and society that allows for more equitable participation in both paid and unpaid labor.

Yet these measures, however necessary, remain insufficient unless they bring about a change in the nature of property relations that structurally make women’s labor cheaper, more precarious, and less protected. Full recognition of care work does not mean merely including it in GDP calculations; it means transforming it into a collective responsibility borne by the state and society, not by women alone. And achieving wage equality does not mean only raising the minimum wage; it means dismantling the class hierarchy in the labor market that makes women, particularly those from the lower classes, the most vulnerable in every crisis.

Ultimately, eliminating the feminization of poverty cannot be separated from a critique of the capitalist economic structure that produces it. The issue is not merely about improving living conditions; it is about a fundamental reconsideration of how labor is organized and how resources and power are distributed within society. As long as women bear the burden of reproducing life without recognition, without wages, and without protection, any talk of equality remains a discourse suspended in the air, never touching the ground on which millions of women stand every day.

Statistical Sources

• UN Women, Gender Snapshot 2025: https://www.unwomen.org/en/node/476303
• UN Women, Women aged 25-34 face higher poverty rates (2023): https://sundiatapost.com/2bn-women-girls-lack-access-to-social-protection-un-women/
• UN Women, Equal Pay (CSW61): https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/csw61/equal-payEmail

Bayan Saleh

A Danish leftist-feminist activist and writer of Iraqi origin, Bayan Saleh is a feminist activist, writer, and long-time leftist organizer. She co-founded the Independent Women’s Organization in Erbil in 1991, was active in the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq and the Committee for the Defense of Iraqi Women’s Rights, and represented the committee at the UNHCR in Turkey. Since 2001 she has been a member and candidate of the Danish Red-Green Alliance, and since 2003 she has served on the editorial board of Al-Hiwar Al-Mutamaddin. She coordinates the Center for Women’s Equality, is a member of Amnesty International, and has served in leading positions in the Danish Women’s Council. Bayan has led multiple projects on migrant and refugee women’s rights in Denmark, Kurdistan, and the Middle East, and frequently participates in Scandinavian and international conferences on women’s rights, migration, and equality. Her educational background includes a BSc in Agriculture (University of Mosul, Iraq), diplomas in administration and IT (Denmark), and professional qualifications in psychotherapy and family counseling. She currently works as a family counselor and project manager supporting migrant women in Denmark.

Women in Conflict Zones

By World Beyond War

April 30, 2026

Source: World Beyond War

Webinar: Women in Conflict Zones

Retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel Ann Wright will open the webinar with the latest update on U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) activities in the region. Dr. Jamila J. Ghaddar will talk about her work archiving conflicts across the region.

This webinar aims to create a space for examining the gendered impacts of war and violent conflict for all people who experience gender-based oppression. 

Speakers

Hanan Awwad has been the President of WILPF Palestine since she started the Section in 1988. An academic, writer, editor and cultural advisor by profession, her main expertise lies in various areas including (resistance) literature, human rights and women’s rights. Hanan received a PhD from Oxford University, has published twelve books and received multiple awards for her work in defending human rights and dignity. Hanan is also a member of the Palestinian National Council and has represented Palestine in more than 700 conferences.

Nagham Al Baba is a student and youth activist from Gaza. She is engaged in raising awareness about the impact of conflict on young people, especially women, and speaks about the realities of life and education in conflict-affected areas.

Dr. Parisa Babaali is an Iranian American data scientist in the US Tech industry whose work bridges science, ethical AI, and human-centered innovation. She was born and raised in Iran during the 1979 revolution and travels regularly to Iran and keeps in contact with activists in Iran. She is an advocate for peace and uses her voice to speak against violence and the human cost of conflict. Passionate about advancing women in STEM, she mentors and supports the next generation of female leaders in the society. Parisa works extensively on addressing social determinants of health and advancing equity, using data and AI to uncover disparities and drive more inclusive outcomes across communities.

Hania Bitar founded The Palestinian Youth Association for Leadership and Rights Activation (PYALARA) in 1999, and she continues to lead it until today.

She started her career as an English teacher at Bethlehem University, then worked as a business manager at the weekly Jerusalem Times newspaper.

In 2005, she co-founded the International Women’s Commission for a Just and Sustainable Peace between Israel and Palestine with Palestinian, Israeli, and international women leaders.

In 2006, she ran in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections as part of the “Third Way” list. She also served as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Arab American University in Jenin, and on the boards of several Palestinian NGOs such as MIFTAH and the Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling (WCLAC).

She founded the Global Solidarity for Peace in Palestine, which now includes more than 150 organizations, networks, and activists working worldwide to support Palestinian rights and issues.

In 2025, she was awarded the Seán MacBride Peace Prize by the International Peace Bureau (IPB) in recognition of her outstanding work in promoting peace, human rights, and resisting injustice under difficult conditions.

She is a founding member of the Media and Information Literacy Experts Network (MILEN). She was also selected as one of the Young Global Leaders and Young Arab Leaders.

In early 2026, she was elected as the representative of Arab Region to the UNESCO Global Alliance for Media and Information Literacy (MIL).

She is the author of many articles and a keynote speaker at various national and international conferences. In addition to her leadership skills, she is a professional media figure and an influential personality.

Jamila Ghaddar is a South Lebanese archivist and historian of liberation movements and the Arab region. She has been organizing in the anti-Zionist struggle her whole life. Jamila is co-lead of the Fighting Erasure-Digitizing Gaza’s Genocide & the War on Lebanon project; and Assistant Professor at University of Amsterdam. She lives between Lebanon and Netherlands, learning more about the bloody trail of Dutch empire and how to fight erasure in active zones of genocide and war.

Shirine Jurdi is a highly accomplished expert in Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) with over 20 years of experience in peacebuilding, conflict resolution, and gender equality across the MENA region. Her career is marked by a deep commitment to empowering women and youth in conflict-affected areas, ensuring their voices are heard in peace processes and recovery efforts. Shirine has collaborated with renowned organizations such as WILPF, MENAPPAC (GPPAC), Arab States CSOs and Feminist Network, Choueifat Women’s League, Local Mediators Network Marj’oun Hasbaya to design and implement programs that bridge global agendas with local implementation.

Shirine’s work spans a diverse range of initiatives, from documenting peacebuilding initiatives to the impact of war on women and youth to advocating for gender-sensitive policies in post-conflict recovery. She has led groundbreaking projects, including murals on UNSCR 1325; storytelling documentaries on WPS in Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, and Lebanon, and policy papers on the role of women in peacebuilding amid war. Her expertise also extends to environmental impacts of militarization, where she has championed women’s leadership in addressing the environmental consequences of conflict.

As a skilled facilitator and trainer, Shirine has conducted workshops on WPS and Youth, Peace, and Security (YPS) in countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Tunisia, Libya and Georgia. She also fostered collaboration among civil society organizations and integrating climate change and small arms prevention into peacebuilding agendas. Shirine’s contributions have been recognized globally, and she has been invited to speak at high-profile events such as the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), COP28, Conference on Conventional Weapons (CCW), Control Arms and others.

Shirine holds a master’s degree in International Affairs from the Lebanese American University and has pursued doctorate studies in Peace and Conflict Studies at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. She is a passionate advocate for amplifying voices, aiming to contribute to a more peaceful and inclusive world. Awarded certificate on ceasefire in negotiation from UNDPPA. Recognized for her dedication, Shirine was awarded the International Young Women’s Peace and Human Rights Award from Democracy Today in 2019.

Ann Wright is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel and a 29-year veteran of the Army and Army Reserves. She was also a diplomat in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan, and Mongolia. She received the State Department’s Award for Heroism for her actions during the civil war in Sierra Leone. She resigned from the Department of State on March 19, 2003, in opposition to the Iraq war. She is the co-author of Dissent: Voices of Conscience and appeared in the documentary “Uncovered”. Ann is a board member of CODEPINK and an advisory board member of Veterans For Peace, International Peace Bureau, World BEYOND War, Gaza Freedom Flotilla, NO to NATO, Hawaii Peace and Justice, Pacific Peace Network, and Women Cross DMZ.

This article was originally published by World Beyond War; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.

Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond

By Dan Steinbock

May 1, 2026

Source: Informed Comment

Image by Addshore/Wikimediacommons, licensed via CC BY 4.0

Israeli military aggression has “reshaped both the physical and ecological landscape” of southern Lebanon, according to the Lebanese report (which does not consider the impacts of Israel’s latest barrage of attacks this spring).

In her foreword, Lebanon’s minister for the environment Tamara el Zein notes: “The scale and intentionality of the damage to forests, agricultural lands, marine ecosystems, water resources, and atmospheric quality constitute what must be recognized as an act of ecocide, with consequences that extend far beyond immediate destruction.”

Obliteration ecocide in Lebanon

Released by the country’s National Council for Scientific Research and presented by the environment ministry, the report accuses Israel of “ecocide” during the 2023–2024 war and subsequent escalations. It frames environmental destruction not as incidental “collateral damage” but as systematic transformation of ecosystems.

Key findings are damning. They include:

• 5,000 hectares of forest destroyed
• Massive agricultural losses ($118m direct infrastructure damage; much larger indirect losses)
• Soil contamination (including high phosphorus levels)
• Air pollution from repeated strike cycles
• Destruction of orchards and irrigation systems

Minister el Zein characterizes this as “intentional ecological destruction” affecting food systems, public health, and long-term viability of southern Lebanon’s rural economy.

International reporting on the same dossier highlights an estimated total damage burden of over $25 billion when recovery costs and economic losses are included. The figure is a combined total from the assessments by the Lebanese report and the World Bank Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA) 2025.

This framing aligns with a growing legal discourse around “ecocide” as a potential international crime, particularly where environmental damage is widespread, long-term, and strategically embedded in military operations.

It is also aligned with UN reporting on the broader Israel–Lebanon escalation confirming extensive infrastructure destruction, civilian displacement, and strikes affecting residential areas.

As the ecocide of Gaza has gone effectively unpunished by the international community, the Netanyahu government is extending the environmental devastation into Lebanon and the proximate region.

Obliteration doctrine in Gaza

In The Obliteration Doctrine (2025), related commentaries and excerpts, I define this doctrine as the lethal mix of scorched earth policy, collective punishment and civilian victimization, coupled with massive indiscriminate bombardment and systematic use of artificial intelligence (AI).

The concept is vital because it connects the dots between military strategies, aerial bombardment, lethal deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) and international law, particularly the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention. As Professor William Schabas, a leading scholar of genocide, notes, “the Obliteration Doctrine” “adds a new term to the lexicon on genocide, notably in the application of international law and its judicial mechanisms.”

Modern warfare in Gaza is no longer just counterinsurgency but systems-level destruction of the environmental and infrastructural substrate of life—water, soil, agriculture, energy, and urban continuity.

This interpretation overlaps with empirical reporting on Gaza’s environmental collapse:

• Satellite analysis shows 38–48% of tree cover and farmland destroyed
• Severe contamination of soil and groundwater
• Large-scale destruction of greenhouses and irrigation systems
• Air pollution from sustained bombardment and debris burning

These patterns are described in independent investigations as producing conditions of near-uninhabitability in many parts of Gaza.

Warfare is no longer bounded by battlefield geography. It becomes the restructuring—or “obliteration”—of ecological systems that sustain civilian life.

Ecocide here is not merely destruction of nature, but destruction of life-support systems as purposeful strategy. It is another word for cultural genocide.

Lebanon and the Gaza template

The Lebanese report and international commentary suggest strong structural parallels between Gaza and southern Lebanon operations:

• Destruction of orchards, especially olive groves (long-lived economic ecosystems)
• Targeting of water infrastructure and rural supply systems
• Repeated airstrikes generating soil and atmospheric contamination
• Displacement of civilian populations from ecological productive zones, which can be seen as a form of ethnic cleansing

International media reports that Israel is applying a “Gaza playbook” in Lebanon: expulsion orders, infrastructure targeting, and village-level destruction patterns.

Lebanon is now an adjacent theatre where similar operational logics are extended across a different ecological terrain:

• Gaza: dense urban-agricultural mosaic under blockade conditions
• Southern Lebanon: dispersed agro-ecological rural system with forested and orchard economies

In both cases, ecological assets are not collateral but structurally embedded in livelihood and resistance capacity – and that makes them strategic targets under the high-intensity obliteration doctrine.

Consequences beyond Lebanon (and for Israel)

The environmental consequences of such conflict patterns are not geographically contained. Three spillover trajectories are particularly important.

First of all, regional ecological degradation. Soil contamination, wildfire damage, and agricultural collapse are not confined to strike zones. Windborne particulates, water contamination, and long-term soil chemistry changes affect broader cross-border ecosystems.

Second, economic fragility and food-system insecurity. Both Lebanon and Israel depend on regional agricultural stability and water systems. Repeated infrastructure destruction increases food import dependence, rural depopulation and long-term land degradation in border zones.

Third, internal Israeli environmental vulnerability. A less discussed but critical dimension is the simple reality that prolonged warfare conditions can feed back into Israel’s own ecological systems vis-à-vis air quality deterioration from sustained military operations, water system strain under security infrastructure expansion, fire ecology disruption in northern regions. long-term land-use militarization effects.

In this sense, “obliteration” generates mutual ecological degradation across interconnected landscapes. It is an ecological version of MAD – mutually assured destruction.

Diffusion of doctrine

The key concern is not just localized destruction but doctrinal diffusion. Methods of high-intensity ecological disruption normalize across theaters. And let’s keep in mind that the first test of the obliteration doctrine occurred in Dahiya, the predominantly Shia enclave of Beirut.

US military legacy in Iraq and Syria already includes extensive infrastructure and ecosystem disruption under counterinsurgency and airpower doctrines. These feature water system destruction in Iraq, oil field fires and atmospheric contamination, and urban siege warfare effects in Raqqa and Mosul via coalition partners.

Such precedents create a shared operational vocabulary where environmental damage is treated as secondary to strategic objectives.

In a potential Israel–Iran escalation scenario, ecological infrastructure becomes strategically central through water scarcity systems in Iran’s arid regions, oil and petrochemical infrastructure vulnerability, and agricultural basins dependent on irrigation networks.

Under the obliteration logic, these become dual-use environments—civilian life-support systems that also acquire military significance.

Finally, there is the regional systemic risk. This implies a shift from territorial warfare to ecosystem-targeted coercion, where water, soil, energy, and agriculture become primary pressure points. Meanwhile, environmental degradation is exploited as a form of strategic leverage and recovery cycles extend beyond political timelines into generational horizons.

From battlefield to biosphere as target

The Lebanese charges, Gaza environmental destruction data, and the doctrine of obliteration converge on a structural transformation in modern conflict.

The object of war is increasingly not just territory or armed forces, but the ecological infrastructure that makes civilian life possible. In this way, destruction of that infrastructure is a prelude to ethnic cleansing and displacement.

For military doctrines, this may be framed as incidental or operational necessity. But for Lebanon and environmental analysts, this constitutes potential ecocide under international law. In view of the obliteration doctrine, it represents a systemic shift in the practice of warfare itself – from the battlefield to biosphere as target.

What happens in Gaza won’t stay in Gaza. What happens in Lebanon won’t stay in Lebanon. The stage is being set for obliteration ecocides wherever they are seen as effective necessities.

Ecological systems are now central to both the conduct and consequences of war.

This article was originally published by Informed Comment; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.

Dan Steinbock

• Website

Dan Steinbock is the author of The Fall of Israel. He is the founder of Difference Group and has served at the India, China and America Institute (US), Shanghai Institute for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore).