At the UN, Trump Asked a Question the World Should Take Seriously

There was something striking about Donald Trump's latest address to the United Nations General Assembly. The American president presented the future of Iran as a choice between reconstruction through an agreement and what he explicitly described as the annihilation of the Islamic Republic. Trump said he had a "big decision" to make and asked whether Iran would be allowed to rebuild into one of the greatest countries in the Middle East, or whether the United States would "annihilate" the Islamic Republic and drive it "into hell."

The language is extraordinary for a speech delivered before the world's principal multilateral institution. Whatever one's view of Iran's government, its nuclear programme or the war that has developed between Washington and Tehran, the idea of a sitting American president publicly presenting the destruction of an entire state as one of his options raises fundamental questions about the limits of presidential power and the meaning of international law.

Trump's argument was also explicitly connected to American domestic politics. He said Iran was waiting to see how he performed in the midterm elections before making a deal, while insisting that the election itself did not determine his policy toward Iran. The juxtaposition is difficult to ignore. The United States is simultaneously fighting a major war, facing economic consequences from disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz and approaching a national election cycle.

The broader issue is not simply Trump. For decades, successive American administrations have invoked concepts such as the "rules-based international order" while also using military force, sanctions, covert operations and other instruments of state power outside the conventional framework of equal sovereignty. The tension becomes particularly visible when Washington argues that other countries must respect sovereignty and international rules while reserving extensive freedom of action for itself.

The developments surrounding Venezuela provide another uncomfortable example. Following the January U.S. military operation that removed Nicolás Maduro, former vice president Delcy Rodríguez became Venezuela's interim president. She has subsequently met with American officials and is negotiating major questions involving Venezuela's oil industry, debt and international assets.

Greenland provides another illustration of the changing language of American power. Trump previously threatened to acquire the territory, producing a serious dispute with Denmark and Greenland. The agreement eventually signed in September 2026 stops short of transferring sovereignty and instead provides for an expanded American military presence and long-term U.S. security responsibilities while formally preserving Danish sovereignty and Greenlandic self-determination.

None of these developments can simply be placed into one category. The United States has legitimate security interests, and American officials can argue that military power is necessary to protect them. But the larger principle remains important: international rules cannot be credible if they are treated as binding only when they constrain America's rivals.

Trump's UN speech therefore deserves attention beyond the immediate Iran crisis. The real question is not whether Iran should negotiate. It is whether the international system can continue operating on the assumption that the world's most powerful state can define the boundaries of legitimate action while simultaneously presenting itself as the principal guardian of the rules.

If the answer is yes, then the world should at least be honest about the system it is defending. If the answer is no, then sovereignty and international law have to apply consistently, including to the United States.