As talks with Iran have stalled, President Donald Trump has repeatedly issued what critics describe as threats of mass destruction, including comments that many interpreted as a threat of nuclear attack.
In recent weeks Trump has threatened that the ‘whole civilization’ of Iran would ‘die’ and said the country could be ‘blown up’ if it did not comply with U.S. demands. Those statements, and others, have generally hardened Iranian resolve rather than cowing Tehran, observers say.
Although the U.S. administration has at times asserted that a ceasefire with Iran remained in effect, the two countries exchanged significant strikes this week. On Thursday, May 7, the U.S. launched strikes it characterized as ‘self-defense’ against military facilities it said were responsible for attempted attacks on three U.S. Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran called the U.S. strikes a violation of the ceasefire and said its own actions were retaliation for American attacks on Iranian oil tankers the previous day.
Trump told reporters that if the ceasefire were truly over, ‘you’re just going to have to look at one big glow coming out of Iran,’ adding that ‘they’d better sign the agreement fast… If they don’t sign, they’re going to have a lot of pain.’ Many interpreted that remark as an explicit reference to nuclear weapons; others saw it as a repeated threat to target civilian energy and infrastructure, a step critics say would itself be a war crime.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, editor-in-chief of Responsible Statecraft, noted the irony of a president apparently threatening nuclear action against Iran while asserting that the stated aim of the conflict is to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) warned that ‘threatening to make Iran glow—with nuclear weapons or otherwise—is an almost unthinkable threat to commit a mass war crime against 92 million people. It must never be normalized.’ The group asked whether the president is fit to lead and urged reflection on whether the chain of command would refuse unlawful orders that would kill millions.
Last month’s comments from Trump about wiping out Iranian civilization drew widespread condemnation and prompted dozens of Democratic members of Congress to call for consideration of the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office.
Humanitarian and legal experts emphasize that threats to target civilians or civilian infrastructure violate international law and raise urgent questions about escalation, command responsibility, and the mechanisms that would prevent unlawful orders from being carried out.
Critics and advocacy groups say the rhetoric must be taken seriously: the war needs to end, and threats of mass violence must not become normalized as ordinary political tactics.
