Trump stood before the United Nations and threatened to “annihilate” Iran. With the authority to order a nuclear strike resting in the hands of one US president, the consequences of treating such threats as mere bluster could be catastrophic.
Donald Trump, once again, issued dire threats against Iran in his 22 September address to the UN General Assembly, saying, “I have a very big decision to make. Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill or destroy people or countries again? Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?” The “very big decision”, he suggested, would come after the US midterm elections.
Several commentators have noted that this extreme rhetoric was all the more shocking in the context of being delivered at the world’s foremost international organisation for the peaceful settlement of disputes, created in the aftermath of World War II “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. Indeed, as an obligation of membership, all states agree to resolve their disputes peacefully and to refrain from the threat or use of force against one another. The US is currently in breach of this commitment.
Although some news outlets lamented the tone of Trump’s speech, few have explicitly pointed out his not-so-veiled threat to use nuclear weapons. Most have ignored it, and a few have even suggested that it was simply a ‘negotiating ploy’.
This threat, however, is similar to others he has made over the last seven months, usually at moments of extreme frustration. On Easter morning, for example, he wrote on Truth Social: “Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”
A couple of days later, he warned, “A whole civilization will die tonight never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.” He has also threatened on several occasions to “bomb Iran back to the Stone Ages”.
I have written previously about the danger of a US president having ‘sole authority’ to launch nuclear weapons and the ease of doing so. As William Perry, former secretary of defense under Clinton, has written, “For President Trump, starting nuclear war is about as easy as sending a tweet.”
Given his mental state, this is especially concerning. On 30 April, a group of 36 senior mental health professionals, experienced in the diagnosis of cognitive impairment and the evaluation of dangerousness, issued an update to their earlier 2024 report, concluding (after citing his symptoms): “It is our professional opinion that the behaviours of Donald Trump, tragically, are neither momentary lapses nor political theatre… they reflect a rapidly worsening, reality-untethered, increasingly dangerous decline… For the reasons cited above, emphasising that he presents a clear and present danger to our country and to the world, it is our expert opinion that Donald J. Trump is mentally unfit to be the president of the United States and that steps to remove him from office must be undertaken with the greatest urgency.”
Although the use of nuclear weapons is considered a taboo, Trump has previously broken international taboos (seemingly without even knowing they existed), such as the taboo against political assassination, which he violated on 28 February, when Israel and the US attacked Iran, assassinating its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, four of his family members, and a number of other senior Iranian leaders.
Most ghastly is what would happen if Trump were to use his ‘sole authority‘ to launch nuclear weapons against a country of 90 million people. The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – already overwhelming in terms of human tragedy – would be unleashed exponentially against the population of Iran, with whom Trump has previously claimed to empathise.
Because of the dramatically increased power of today’s nuclear weapons and their sheer numbers, the outcome would be more monstrous than any war crime in history. Even the use of tactical nuclear weapons would be appalling beyond imagination, and a full-fledged nuclear attack that would ‘annihilate’ the country would, without doubt, bring about one of the darkest periods in history. The death, destruction and suffering would be unparalleled.
It would also make Trump the worst war criminal of all time, instantly convert the US into a pariah, be a terrible blight on humanity and lead to many unforeseen consequences.
One playbook of unforeseen consequences is that Putin could follow suit in Ukraine (with equally horrific effects). NATO might then feel obliged to respond in kind and the resulting escalation could lead to World War III and nuclear armageddon.
Even if there were no further iterations (which is unlikely), the results could lead to a nuclear winter, where smoke and soot from Iran’s burning cities and other infrastructure would loft into the upper atmosphere, blocking sunlight, darkening the sky, and chilling the Earth, creating massive crop failures and famine. Studies have shown that even a ‘limited’ war could cause a nuclear winter that would (depending on its size) cause untold millions around the world to die of starvation.
It is no wonder that everyone wants to pretend that Trump’s threats weren’t really what they seemed and probably wouldn’t be acted upon, because Trump would live up to his TACO (‘Trump Always Chickens Out’) reputation.
But one of the important, hard-learned lessons of international relations is that, when a leader makes a threat against another state, it should be taken with deadly seriousness. This has sometimes been overlooked, as, for example, in 1990, when Saddam Hussein amassed troops on his border with Kuwait and threatened to invade. No one took it seriously – until Iraq followed through, leading to the first Gulf War.
Much as we would like to forget these terrible threats, we can’t. The leaders of the world, including our own, should clearly communicate to Trump the likely consequences of these actions and their utter unacceptability. We must collectively urge them to do so.
Legal means to remove Trump from office should also be undertaken, such as the 25th Amendment; Rep. Jamie Raskin’s (D-Md) proposed nonpartisan ‘Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office’; and/or impeachment. All of this is much more likely if the Democrats win the House and the Senate in the upcoming US midterm elections.
Indeed, every one of us needs to ensure that we don’t experience such a bleak future, and to reject the idea that anyone should be able to decide to “destroy a civilisation” or “annihilate” a people and a culture (regardless of how we judge their behaviour or our fears of their future actions). This is totally against international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law. Such a decision should not be made under ANY circumstances, especially not by one individual, who is probably cognitively impaired; definitely frustrated and aggrieved; and who possibly has little understanding of the consequences of the extreme threats he is making – but who does have the capacity to carry out a nuclear launch at any time of his own choosing.
Connie Peck
Dr. Connie Peck, AO, is the Founder/Former Principal Coordinator of the UNITAR Programme in Peacemaking and Conflict Prevention – the first-ever training programme in negotiation and mediation in the United Nations (now in its 33rd year). When lecturing at La Trobe University in the 1980s, she also founded Psychologists for the Prevention of War (now called Psychologists for Peace) during the height of the Cold War and acted as its first Convenor. She is the author of several books and numerous articles on conflict resolution and the nuclear threat.See also: www.linkedin.com/in/connie-peck-b92a403a0