This is not the first time the delusional US president, in his bullying rhetoric against Iran, has used the phrase “returning [it] to the Stone Age.” In his latest speech—preceded by an extensive promotional buildup—Donald Trump threatened Iran that if it failed to comply with certain demands, it would face consequences and be sent back to the Stone Age.
The position Trump articulated in such terms is not merely political exaggeration or a deterrent posture. At a deeper level, this language carries an implicit normalization of maximal violence and reduces an entire nation to a “destroyable target.” If, in strategic analysis, this tone is seen as a marker of a maximum-pressure policy, then in ethical analysis it must also be understood as evidence of a decline in standards of responsibility in state discourse.
In the classical logic of deterrence, a threat must be both “credible” and “controllable.” But when rhetoric escalates to the level of “civilizational destruction,” it moves beyond deterrence and enters the realm of unrestrained psychological warfare and “costly exaggeration.” Such language not only fails to aid crisis management, it also destroys the bridges of de-escalation. At a time when the region is grappling with recent tensions and conflicts, this rhetoric can generate maximalist interpretations and chain reactions—the very outcome any rational strategy should seek to avoid.
But the issue is not only strategic; it is also ethical. Threatening to “return a country to the Stone Age” effectively implies accepting the widespread destruction of vital infrastructure, the suffering of civilians, and the collapse of social life. This kind of language blurs the line between military targeting and collective punishment and implicitly sidelines human dignity. Even if such a threat is never carried out, normalizing it in political discourse lowers the threshold of moral sensitivity and paves the way for the acceptance of greater violence.
At the same time, this tone reflects a disregard for the history and identity of a society. Iran is not merely a geographic unit or a security file; it is a land with a millennia-long legacy in the production of knowledge, culture, and social organization—from philosophical and literary traditions to its role in connecting East and West. In this context, the idea of “returning [it] to the Stone Age” is not only practically impossible but also conceptually crude and reductionist: civilizations are not erased by bombardment; what is destroyed, first and foremost, is human life and the infrastructure of livelihoods—not the “history” of a nation.
Another critical point is the impact of such discourse on international norms. After the catastrophic experiences of the twentieth century, an implicit consensus emerged that absolute threats against the existence of countries must be restrained. A return to the language of “total destruction” erodes this red line and signals to other actors that such rhetoric can be used without serious cost. The result is the gradual erosion of the very order meant to prevent the recurrence of such catastrophes.
At the strategic level, such threats can also prove counterproductive: strengthening internal cohesion within the targeted country, encouraging asymmetric deterrence doctrines, and reducing incentives for diplomatic engagement. When one side perceives itself under existential threat, the space for compromise narrows, and more costly options begin to appear more attractive.
Criticism of Trump’s terroristic and aggressive posture is not simply because it is “harsh,” but because it simultaneously undermines three layers: strategic effectiveness, international norms, and ethical principles. The language of politics is part of the toolkit of power, but when it leans toward eliminationism and absolute destruction, it becomes destabilizing rather than deterrent. If the goal is sustainable security, what is required is not an exaggeration of destructive capacity, but the strengthening of predictability, the preservation of diplomatic channels, and adherence to minimal ethical standards in both word and deed.
It is enough for the human conscience to compare the tone and language of Donald Trump’s latest address with that of Masoud Pezeshkian’s letter to the American people. Trump’s speech is filled with hatred, resentment, and threats, while Pezeshkian’s letter overflows with calls for engagement, peace, and security. The notion of “returning” an ancient civilization—one that, through its intellectual ingenuity and maturity, has stood far removed from the Stone Age for thousands of years—is an utterly arrogant delusion.
At the same time, the temporary occupant of the White House, in employing such expressions, has revealed that his intellectual and personal framework lies closer to the Stone Age—and indeed to a state of primal savagery—than anything else.
NOURNEWS