Trump’s genocide threat against Iran was another new low for America

Around 153 BCE^[1], Cato the Elder, one of Rome’s most prominent senators, began ending every single one of his speeches^[2] with the same words: “Carthago delenda est”, or “Carthage must be destroyed”.

His relentless campaign to destroy Carthage has been described as the first recorded incitement to genocide^[3].

The genocide actually happened: Rome destroyed Carthage and its entire civilisation.

Fast forward to today and the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world, the president of the United States, has declared^[4] a “whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again”, in reference to Iran.

Donald Trump’s words were even stronger than Cato’s. Fortunately, the follow-up was not and the episode ultimately ended in a two-week ceasefire between US-Israel and Iran.

Read more: The US-Israel ceasefire with Iran presses pause on a costly war, but can peace last?^[5]

Is this language unprecedented?

Put simply, yes. Since the beginning of the war with Iran, Trump’s language has been consistently aggressive and extreme^[6].

But the “death of a civilisation” comment crossed a threshold that is striking even measured against his own record.

It came shortly after another expletive-laden social media post^[7].

Trump’s words are unprecedented both in form and in substance.

While US presidents have used plenty of profanities and expletives in private conversations^[8], with Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon probably winning any foul-language competition anywhere in the world, Trump is believed to be the only president^[9] to have ever deliberately used “fuck” in public.

In substance, no modern US president has ever threatened or incited genocide.

Trump’s infamous “a whole civilisation will die tonight” comment, though, can only be interpreted as an open threat to all 93 million Iranian citizens.

The closest parallel anywhere in the modern world may actually be the Iranian chants “death to America” and “death to Israel”, which have featured prominently in pro-regime rallies since the 1979 revolution.

But even there, the late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in 2019^[10] the chants weren’t aimed at the US or the American people themselves, but at America’s rulers.

Is this language illegal?

Trump’s language, and that of other members of his administration, is deeply concerning and disturbing^[11].

This includes statements by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth that US forces would deny quarter to the enemy^[12] and that the US does not fight with “stupid rules of engagement^[13]”.

If these words turned into action, they would certainly constitute war crimes.

If Trump really meant he was willing to use the US military against Iran’s civilian population, this action would fall squarely within the definition of genocide provided by Article II^[14] of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

In other words, any action taken in the spirit of that post would constitute genocide and blatant violation of international law.

More broadly, the legality of the whole US attack on Iran is deeply contentious: most international and US law experts^[15] seem to agree the war violates the UN Charter.

There are also serious questions pertaining US constitutional law. The US Constitution does not grant the president the power to declare war – this power belongs to Congress.

Presidents should therefore seek congressional approval before waging war. At the time of writing, the war has been going on for 41 days and no Congressional approval has been obtained.

What can be done about this?

Probably nothing. The US political system does not include an easy way to remove a sitting president.

In the few hours between the infamous statement and the ceasefire declaration, several US political leaders^[16] talked about invoking the 25th Amendment^[17].

Under that provision, the vice president and a majority of the cabinet can remove a president from office when they believe the president “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”.

It is unlikely JD Vance and most of the cabinet would be willing to make this case.

The only other avenue would be impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by removal by the Senate. Trump was impeached twice during his first term and acquitted by the Republican majority in the Senate both times.

Currently, Republicans control both chambers, making this option also very unlikely.

Will this have lasting consequences?

Definitely. As political scientist Joseph S. Nye Jr – who identified the concept of soft power – famously explained^[18], soft power is “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies”.

The US has enjoyed significant soft power throughout the Cold War and beyond.

Now 93 million Iranians have been threatened with the destruction of their entire civilisation by the president of the US, we must ask how far American soft power can realistically go in Iran and around the world moving forward.

In ancient Rome, Cato the Elder died three years before Rome destroyed Carthage. He never saw his words become action.

Hopefully neither Trump nor anyone else will ever see the destruction of Iranian civilisation. But Trump is definitely overseeing the instantaneous destruction of American soft power.

References

1. ^{^} 153 BCE (www.gajrc.com)
2. ^{^} every single one of his speeches (www.jstor.org)
3. ^{^} first recorded incitement to genocide (gsp.yale.edu)
4. ^{^} has declared (www.politico.com)
5. ^{^} The US-Israel ceasefire with Iran presses pause on a costly war, but can peace last? (theconversation.com)
6. ^{^} aggressive and extreme (theconversation.com)
7. ^{^} expletive-laden social media post (www.abc.net.au)
8. ^{^} profanities and expletives in private conversations (www.rollingstone.com)
9. ^{^} the only president (www.opb.org)
10. ^{^} said in 2019 (www.dw.com)
11. ^{^} concerning and disturbing (www.justsecurity.org)
12. ^{^} deny quarter to the enemy (edition.cnn.com)
13. ^{^} stupid rules of engagement (www.theguardian.com)
14. ^{^} Article II (www.ohchr.org)
15. ^{^} international and US law experts (www.bbc.com)
16. ^{^} US political leaders (www.theguardian.com)
17. ^{^} 25th Amendment (constitution.congress.gov)
18. ^{^} famously explained (books.google.com.au)