Donald Trump’s repeated threats to annihilate Iran rank among the most alarming public statements he has made since returning to the White House. The concern extends beyond the moral and legal implications of threatening an entire nation. Such rhetoric risks normalising the possibility of nuclear destruction at a time when the consequences of a major escalation could reach far beyond Iran and threaten human civilisation itself.
The deliberate killing of civilians constitutes a war crime under international humanitarian law. Yet the danger posed by threats of national annihilation is even broader. They introduce the language of mass destruction into political discourse and risk pushing the world towards a catastrophe from which neither the Iranian people nor the wider international community would emerge unscathed.
There can be no moral justification for such threats. The more urgent question is what governments, international institutions and ordinary citizens can do to prevent the rhetoric from becoming reality.
The Dangerous Myth That Nuclear Weapons Have Preserved World Peace
For decades, nuclear weapons have been defended as instruments that helped end the Second World War and maintained peace through deterrence.
That interpretation, however, overlooks the devastating human cost of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the continuing risks created by the existence of nuclear arsenals.
The bombs dropped on the two Japanese cities killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and left hundreds of thousands more injured or exposed to long-term illness and suffering.
The argument that nuclear weapons were necessary to end the war in 1945 remains contested. Critics have pointed to alternative approaches that might have brought the conflict to an end without the atomic destruction of two cities.
Nevertheless, the narrative that the bombings prevented a costly invasion and saved lives has played an influential role in legitimising the continued possession of nuclear weapons.
By portraying the violent beginning of the nuclear age as a necessary achievement, supporters of that narrative have obscured a fundamental ethical question: whether weapons capable of indiscriminate destruction on such a scale should ever have been developed, retained or considered acceptable instruments of national security.
From the perspective of nuclear disarmament advocates, the answer is clear. Nuclear weapons are inherently immoral, and their possession should be prohibited.
Has Nuclear Deterrence Really Prevented War?
The fact that no third world war has occurred since 1945 is frequently presented as evidence that nuclear deterrence has worked.
Yet the absence of another global war does not, by itself, prove that nuclear weapons prevented one.
The post-war international order was shaped by several other major developments, including the establishment of the United Nations, advances in science and technology, and the globalisation of international trade.
Each contributed to changing the political and economic conditions under which states interact.
There is also a more fundamental question: whose peace has supposedly been preserved?
According to conflict mortality data cited in the argument, more than 20 million people have died in armed conflicts around the world since 1945, with estimates suggesting as many as 50 million additional indirect deaths resulting from those conflicts.
The Geneva Academy has also identified approximately 100 armed conflicts worldwide, including 25 international armed conflicts involving more than one country.
These figures challenge the notion that the nuclear age has delivered genuine international peace.
For millions of people living through war, poverty and severe inequality, the absence of another world war has offered little protection against violence and suffering.
Meanwhile, humanity has spent eight decades confronting the possibility that a nuclear weapon might eventually be detonated through accident, miscalculation or deliberate action.
Such an event could potentially trigger a wider nuclear confrontation involving dozens, hundreds or even thousands of warheads.
During the past 80 years, numerous nuclear near-misses have demonstrated how close the world has come to catastrophe.
In some cases, disaster was prevented by the judgement and restraint of individuals. In others, luck played a decisive role.
Rather than guaranteeing peace, nuclear weapons have therefore created a persistent threat to whatever peace the international community has managed to preserve.
Trump’s Contradiction: Threatening Iran While Calling for Nuclear Disarmament
Trump’s position on nuclear weapons has been marked by striking contradictions.
Despite his repeated threats against Iran, including statements published on Truth Social and remarks delivered at the United Nations, he has also openly acknowledged the catastrophic destructive potential of nuclear arsenals.
At one point, Trump stated that nuclear weapons could destroy the world 50 times, even 100 times.
He has also called for nuclear disarmament.
These statements appear difficult to reconcile with his increasingly severe language towards Tehran.
During his address to the United Nations General Assembly in September, Trump threatened to send Iran into what he described as hell, without any prospect of survival or hope of future greatness.
The remarks came from the world’s most prominent diplomatic platform, giving them a different significance from his previous statements on social media.
Yet just two days after that address, Trump reportedly proposed to Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington that China, Russia and the United States hold a summit on nuclear weapons.
The proposal suggested an apparent willingness to discuss arms control even as his public rhetoric towards Iran raised fears of further military escalation.
Could a US-China-Russia Summit Reduce the Nuclear Threat?
China has long maintained that its participation in major nuclear arms reduction negotiations depends on addressing the vast disparity between its arsenal and those of the United States and Russia.
The argument advanced by disarmament advocates is that nuclear parity should not be achieved by encouraging Beijing to expand its arsenal until it reaches the scale maintained by Washington and Moscow.
Instead, the United States and Russia should reduce their nuclear stockpiles towards China’s level.
Such an approach would reverse the logic of an arms race in which each major power expands its destructive capacity to match that of its rivals.
It would also provide an opportunity to adopt China’s proposed comprehensive policy of no first use of nuclear weapons.
Under such a commitment, nuclear-armed states would pledge never to initiate the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict.
For advocates of disarmament, meaningful progress would require the world’s largest nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals rather than demand that others accumulate comparable stockpiles.
From Threatening Iran’s Civilisation to Discussing Nuclear Explosions Over American Cities
Trump’s recent language has intensified concerns about the possibility of nuclear escalation.
On 7 April, he posted an extraordinary warning concerning Iran, declaring:
“A whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”
The statement marked an exceptionally severe escalation in his public rhetoric.
His subsequent remarks at the United Nations further reinforced concerns that threats of large-scale destruction had become part of Washington’s political messaging towards Tehran.
More recently, during an election rally, Trump made comments concerning the possibility of Iran destroying the American cities of Los Angeles and San Diego.
His remarks appeared to suggest that such destruction might be an acceptable price to pay, although Trump later disputed that interpretation.
He argued that the original video clips had been taken out of context and that his reference to a low price concerned petrol costs rather than the destruction of American cities.
Even accepting that explanation, the broader concern remains.
It is hardly reassuring for the president of a nuclear-armed superpower to discuss nuclear bombs exploding over American cities, particularly when the country at the centre of his threats, Iran, does not possess nuclear weapons and lacks the capability to launch missiles against the American mainland, as the argument points out.
The repeated references to mass destruction raise questions about the role that a potential nuclear catastrophe now occupies in Trump’s thinking.
The comparison with Armageddon is intended to capture precisely that danger: the prospect that confrontational rhetoric, political miscalculation and the existence of nuclear arsenals could combine to produce consequences beyond anyone’s control.
What Happened to the Trump Who Once Sought Advice on Nuclear Disarmament?
Trump’s present rhetoric also invites comparison with an earlier period of his public life, when he appeared interested in reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons.
As a property developer, Trump built his business around projects that required extensive investment, long-term planning, engineering expertise and human creativity.
The construction of modern cities is an undertaking that demands enormous resources and years of sustained work.
Their destruction, particularly through nuclear warfare, could occur within moments.
The contrast is especially striking given Trump’s earlier engagement with nuclear disarmament advocates.
In 1986, Trump reportedly invited Dr Bernard Lown, a leading figure in the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), to Trump Tower for a meeting.
Trump sought Lown’s advice on negotiating nuclear arms agreements with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
The meeting took place only one year after the IPPNW received the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts to raise awareness of the medical and humanitarian consequences of nuclear war.
At that time, Trump appeared sufficiently interested in nuclear diplomacy to consult one of the leading international voices advocating the prevention of nuclear catastrophe.
Four decades later, the contrast between that engagement and his threats towards Iran has become difficult to ignore.
Has the Trump who once sought guidance on nuclear negotiations disappeared entirely, or do his more recent references to nuclear disarmament suggest that some possibility of constructive diplomacy remains?
The answer may depend on whether his calls for arms control are translated into serious negotiations rather than being overshadowed by threats of destruction.
Pope Leo XIV Warns Against the Growing Language of Nuclear War
Among the international figures speaking out against the renewed threat of nuclear confrontation is Pope Leo XIV.
The pontiff has repeatedly condemned war and advocated nuclear disarmament, while also criticising political leaders who increasingly speak about nuclear weapons and ever more destructive forms of warfare.
In recent remarks, the Pope denounced leaders who have “begun to speak of nuclear weapons and wars that are becoming increasingly destructive”, a criticism that could also be understood as directed at Trump.
He urged political leaders to meet, sit together and engage in dialogue rather than allow confrontation to escalate.
The Holy See has a longstanding institutional commitment to nuclear abolition.
It was among the original parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and remains one of the strongest international advocates for eliminating these weapons.
This position gives the Pope a particular opportunity to use his moral authority in support of renewed nuclear diplomacy.
One proposal is for Pope Leo XIV to call for an emergency summit bringing together at least Trump, Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Such a meeting would seek to move the three powers away from the current trajectory of confrontation and towards meaningful commitments to reduce the threat of nuclear annihilation.
A summit of this nature would not resolve every geopolitical dispute, but its advocates argue that it could create an opening for serious engagement between the countries whose nuclear policies will shape the future of international security.
Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe Requires More Than Political Statements
Trump’s threats against Iran have revived a question that extends well beyond the immediate confrontation between Washington and Tehran.
Can humanity continue to depend on political restraint, individual judgement and luck to prevent the use of weapons capable of destroying entire cities and potentially threatening civilisation?
The record of the nuclear age suggests that avoiding catastrophe has often depended on moments of restraint rather than the existence of an entirely reliable security system.
Calls for negotiations among Washington, Moscow and Beijing therefore represent only one part of a broader challenge.
Religious leaders, international institutions, governments and civil society also have roles to play in challenging the acceptance of nuclear weapons as permanent instruments of power.
The responsibility does not rest solely with presidents, diplomats or military commanders.
Individuals must also consider what they can do to confront the dangers created by threats of mass destruction and the continued existence of nuclear arsenals.
The central concern is no longer simply whether Trump’s latest threats towards Iran will lead to another military confrontation.
It is whether the international community will act before the language of annihilation, combined with the destructive capabilities already available to nuclear powers, produces a catastrophe that no subsequent negotiation could reverse.
