Trump’s U.N. threat to Annihilate Iran Causes Barely a Ripple; That Should Frighten Us AllInstead of condemnation world leaders said nothing, while others sought to diminish his threat of annihilation __ a war crime __ as mere “war talk”
If one’s survival depends on the annihilation of another, there is no survival __ just the next war waiting to happen. The President of the United States this week stood before the U.N. General Assembly and threatened annihilation and it caused barely a ripple. Meetings continued. Agreements were signed. Handshakes were exchanged, even the occasional pat on the back. Instead of condemning the U.S. President for standing up at the U.N. a body created following the Second world war to prevent another catastrophic war many world leaders chose to say nothing, others made excuses. Canada’s Prime Minster Mark Carney dismissed it as “war talk” . What does that mean? Is it that today a threat of annihilation a war crime according to any international law, is now acceptable as “war talk”? Would Carney have dismissed it so readily had the Iranian or the Russian President stood before the General Assembly and threatened annihilation. Trump’s words, regardless of at whom they were directed, were chilling. “Do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?” he asked. Trump openly threatened genocide, yet Carney dismissed it as mere talk, this despite the Canadian prime minister’s warning earlier this year at Davos of a fading rules-based society, where the strong can do as they please and the weak must suffer. “We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. . . And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim,” said Carney at Davos, in a speech that seemed at the time to offer hope. Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive director of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, spoke of both his hope following Carney’s Davos speech and his disappointment with Carney’s remarks following Trump’s threats of annihilation.. “When Carney gave his now-famous speech in Davos, many of us - perhaps naively - were excited that Canada would emerge as a global leader to reinforce international law and its principles,” Parsi wrote in a Substack posting. “Deep inside, I knew he would disappoint. Just not this fast and not this embarrassingly.” The suggestion that annihilation is mere “war talk” also reflects a growing trend that is removing nuclear weapons use from the unmentionable to the increasingly mentionable. The introduction of tactical nuclear weapons and the suggestion by both Russia and the United States of circumstances where they may be used would seem to be today’s new reality. “The most consequential change in the nuclear order may be taking place without a weapon being detonated. Nuclear threats have become more frequent, while low-yield or “tactical” weapons are increasingly discussed as instruments for managing conventional conflicts. Intended to strengthen deterrence, such references are nevertheless changing how nuclear use is imagined,” says an essay this month in the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune. The Tribune is a journal that examines Israeli and U.S. shared interests, started by Ahmed Charai, CEO of Global Media Holding, an expert on Morocco and the Middle East, as well as a Mideast Policy advisor in Washington. The Tribune essay warned that the rhetoric and doctrines of both Russia and the United States is increasingly “blurring the line between deterring nuclear war and preparing to fight one.” To dismiss Trump’s threat of annihilations as mere “talk” or by his detractors as Trump’s usual inflammatory rhetoric is to diminishes today’s reality.. Trump’s words spoken so openly reflect our world today, where genocide has been allowed in the guise of self defence, an unabashed and democratically elected bully was unleashed into our midst and he did not repulse, but rather he emboldened fellow bullies and cowed the others to promise to buy more weapons, build bigger militaries, believing they will be safe, because they have more guns. But the bully on the block is not offering safety, instead he offers fear and hate to propel those within his orbit to buy more weapons, to believe as he does that strength is in the guns you possess and the belligerence you bring to the negotiation table. It has created a world easily intimidated, fearful of the “other’, led by leaders lacking the intellectual bandwidth to find a path to negotiations. Denmark and Greenland signed a security pact with Trump, hours after he threatened annihilation. Greenland may indeed need a greater security umbrella, but that Trump and the U.S. military which btw has lost most of the wars it often started is a solution, reflects the dearth of quality leadership, a leadership that possess the courage, the intellectual bandwidth and innovative thinking to seek alternatives. Israel’s government, whose massive weapons’ stockpile, is provided by the West, has shown what fear and hate brings to a war. It results in genocide disguised as self-defense. But it is not self-defense. It is a policy that seeks the annihilation of another. It leaves no room for peace, only death. That is the world that Trump, his fellow global bullies, including Russia, as well as those leaders cowed into frightened submission are creating __ a world that sees answers only in building bigger, better guns to scare, and beat the other into submission and fewer and fewer opportunities for a shared peace despite our differences. © 2026 Kathy Gannon |
Salon mailing list
Salon@listserve.com
https://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/listinfo/salon