President Donald Trump has threatened to "wipe Iran off the face of the Earth" if the country attempts to assassinate him, according to The Hill, in comments that international law experts described as an explicit threat of genocide.
Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump referenced intelligence assessments that Iran continues to plot retaliation for the January 2020 US assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, who led the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force. "If they do anything, if they breathe wrong in my direction, the entire country will be gone," Trump said. "We will wipe Iran off the Earth."
The statement represents an extraordinary escalation in rhetoric directed at Tehran, going far beyond previous American threats of military strikes on nuclear facilities or regime change. Threatening to eliminate an entire nation of 90 million people meets the definition of genocide under international law, regardless of whether the threat is credible or intended literally.
Words matter in international relations, particularly when spoken by the American president. The principle of proportionality in armed conflict, enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, requires that military responses be proportionate to the threat faced. Threatening national annihilation in response to a potential assassination attempt violates this principle categorically.
The Iran nuclear deal, abandoned by Trump in his first term and never restored, has left Tehran approximately 18 months from potential nuclear weapons capability, according to recent International Atomic Energy Agency assessments. Intelligence officials have warned that Iranian progress toward weaponization accelerated after Soleimani's killing, as hardliners gained domestic political support for expanding military capabilities.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanani called Trump's comments "the ravings of a war criminal" and "further evidence of the American regime's genocidal intentions." Tehran has consistently denied plotting to assassinate Trump, though US intelligence agencies assess that Iranian operatives have conducted surveillance on the former and current president.
The threat comes as Trump simultaneously confronts crises with NATO allies over Greenland, threatens military action against Canada, and pursues territorial claims on Panama. The cumulative effect is an American foreign policy defined by threats of violence against a widening circle of targets—allies and adversaries alike.
Historical context is essential. During the Cold War, even at the height of tensions, American and Soviet leaders avoided explicitly threatening to annihilate each other's countries, understanding that such rhetoric destabilized deterrence and increased the risk of miscalculation. The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved precisely because President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev maintained communication channels and avoided maximalist rhetoric.
Modern deterrence theory, developed over decades of nuclear strategizing, emphasizes credible threats proportionate to the offense. Threatening massive retaliation for relatively minor provocations undermines credibility, because adversaries conclude the threats are not serious. But this assumes rational actors interested in stability—an assumption that may no longer apply.
International law experts noted that Trump's threat potentially violates the UN Charter's prohibition on threatening the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Article 2(4) requires that "all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
"This isn't a threat to strike military targets or even regime change," said Mary Ellen O'Connell, a professor of international law at Notre Dame. "This is a threat to eliminate an entire country. Under any reading of international law, that's illegal."
The practical implications are significant. Iran's regional proxies—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various militias in Iraq and Syria—may interpret Trump's rhetoric as evidence that the United States seeks conflict regardless of Iranian actions. This could incentivize preemptive strikes against American forces in the region, calculating that restraint will not prevent American aggression.
European allies, already confronting American threats over Greenland, responded with barely concealed alarm. French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters in Davos that "threatening to annihilate nations is not diplomacy, it is madness." German officials declined to comment publicly but privately expressed concern that American unpredictability is destabilizing multiple regions simultaneously.
The Pentagon has not commented on the operational feasibility of Trump's threat. The United States maintains significant military assets in the Persian Gulf region, including an aircraft carrier strike group, but completely destroying a country the size of Iran would require either massive conventional bombardment over an extended period or nuclear weapons. The former is militarily implausible; the latter would constitute the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945 and likely trigger global catastrophe.
Congress, which retains constitutional authority to declare war, has shown no appetite for conflict with Iran. Several lawmakers criticized Trump's statement as reckless. "The president does not have authority to commit genocide, and Congress will not authorize it," said Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee.
The immediate risk is miscalculation. If Iranian security services believe Trump genuinely intends to destroy their country regardless of their actions, they may conclude they have nothing to lose from aggressive action. This is the paradox of maximalist threats: they can provoke the very behavior they ostensibly aim to deter.
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. The assassination of Soleimani in January 2020 was defended by the Trump administration as necessary deterrence against Iranian attacks on American forces. The operation eliminated a key Iranian commander but also triggered a cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation that continues today. Threatening to annihilate Iran does not end that cycle; it escalates it to a level where control becomes impossible.
