A Promise of Hell, and a Deal After the Midterms

Donald Trump stood before the UN General Assembly on 22 September and put a question to the room that was really addressed to Tehran. "Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again?"¹ A moment later he sharpened it: "Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?"² Then, to the same audience, he said what he actually expects to happen: "I believe we'll make a deal right after the election because it doesn't make sense for them not to."³ Iran's UN delegation had already met Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner this week. So the day carried three things at once: a threat of annihilation, an expectation of a deal, and envoys already talking.

The question is which of the three is real. Analysts on four programmes recorded the same day in reaction to the speech, and they divided less over whether Trump means it than over whether the United States could do it. The answer they built, from different chairs and for different reasons, is that the threat is aimed at a country that has spent the year preparing for it and issued by one that can no longer sustain it.

Col. Douglas Macgregor takes the threat seriously as a statement of intent. Reading the speech as a message to Tehran, he compressed it to six words: "Either submit or we will annihilate."⁴ He does not believe an invasion is possible. The Army is spread too thin, and the force lacks the air and missile defence it would need to hold ground anywhere in the region. But he points to the Air Force buildup in Germany and Britain and reads it as staging: "the plan is to build up stocks of weapons and munitions and aircraft and ready them for a massive assault on Iran" once the midterms are behind the administration.⁵

Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar reaches the same date by a different road. To him the renewed talks are a facade, a way of buying time until Washington can, after the midterms, go "right back into" what he calls "striking Iran and military operations."⁶ The talks fail, he argues, on the point the April fourteen-point memorandum failed on. Iran's condition is an end to the war on every front, and nobody can answer the question he keeps returning to: "mechanism by whom that enforces Israel leaving Lebanon, Syria and Gaza?"⁷ Israel has said outright that it will not go. "I don't see Iran capitulating on that point,"⁸ he said, and he does not see Washington or Israel intending to comply either. His horizon is long. The region, in his phrase, is "in for a multi-year conflict."⁹

If that is the intent, the second half of the day's argument is about the means. Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski called the threat unhinged and put a number on what the American military can actually do: it is capable of fighting for "two and a half days and then it must pause."¹⁰ "We don't have staying power."¹¹ The war already fought against Iran was, in her account, illegal, deliberately launched and lost, and the sustained capability that earlier presidents relied on to intimidate is gone. Of annihilation itself, and of the president who proposed it, she said: "there's no moral or legal way that he could do that."¹²

Prof. John Mearsheimer goes further and denies the premise. Asked about reports that Trump will order an invasion or restart the bombing after the midterms, he answered: "This is poppycock. We have no military option."¹³ The munitions inventory is depleted, and by his reading "we have no meaningful military option today, tomorrow or after the election."¹⁴ He extends the point to the Red Sea, where "the last people on the planet you want to pick a fight with these days are the Houthis,"¹⁵ and notes that Trump has refused three separate Saudi requests for help against them, damage to the alliance he considers severe. His regret is the June 17 memorandum of understanding, which Trump walked away from to hold out for better terms. Everything since has deteriorated, and the nuclear question has quietly given way to the narrower goal of reopening the shipping straits.

Col. Daniel Davis watched the speech clip by clip and opened with a verdict: "It is hard to overstate how much damage President Trump did today."¹⁶ On the earlier campaign he is blunt, "we got our ass handed to us,"¹⁷ and he argues Iran has since made itself operationally near-invulnerable to a decisive strike, so that every further turn of pressure only raises the price of the eventual settlement. What the speech destroyed, in his account, was not Iranian resolve but American credibility. After a run of broken promises to allies and adversaries alike, "His word means literally nothing to anyone."¹⁸ Of a president asking the General Assembly whether he should drive a nation into hell, Davis said: "He's setting himself up here as God."¹⁹

From Tehran, Prof. Mohammad Marandi described the country on the receiving end. "the Iranian government has shifted to a wartime economy,"²⁰ he said, and its military is significantly more capable than it was before the war. He reads pressure on Iran as pressure on Washington's own partners: "the more they strangle Iran, the more they are pushing their own proxies" toward instability.²¹ He also gave the plainest reason to doubt a strike before November. For Trump to escalate now, he said, "would be bad for him because it would reduce the chances of the Republicans in the midterm election."²² That leaves the period after, and on that Marandi's answer was unconditional.

“Iran will remain steadfast until Trump is forced to back down.”

Set the six accounts side by side and the thesis is not hard to state. Trump's threat is real as intent and hollow as capability, and the deal he expects in November is one Tehran believes it can wait out.

The deeper question is why a government would issue a threat its own former officers say it cannot carry out. Macgregor's answer is the least comfortable one on offer. He believes the United States is fighting two unsustainable wars at once, that the world now blames Washington rather than Tehran or the Houthis for the disruption in the Gulf, and that the government answers to a foreign lobby rather than to the people who elected it. "we Americans have lost control of our own government,"²³ he said. Of the president himself, Macgregor was blunter still: "I have concluded he's not in charge."²⁴ One need not accept the diagnosis to see what it explains. A speech that promises hell and a deal in the same breath is not a strategy, and none of the analysts who spent the day on it treated it as one.

Also from the day

Amb. Chas Freeman argued that American alliances in the Gulf have effectively collapsed, that Washington could not defend its protected states or the bases it keeps on their soil, and that Saudi Arabia and its neighbours will now have to make their own peace with Iran. "we can't protect them,"²⁵ he said, adding that "much of the world blames us now, not the Iranians, for the shutdown in oil supplies."²⁶

Trita Parsi relayed what Iranian officials told him directly. Because the American bases used to strike Iran sit on NATO and European territory, "they believe that they're already at war with NATO."²⁷ He expects the next escalation to move toward Jordan and possibly into Europe.

On the Ukraine front, Alexander Mercouris reported the Russian Defence Ministry's claim that Dobropolye is encircled and said the strikes on Ukraine's power grid will run through the winter: "there is not going to be a ceasefire in the energy war. That simply isn't going to happen."²⁸ Ukraine, in his estimate, now has "no air defense to all intents and purposes."²⁹

Sources

1. Donald Trump (clip), *Dialogue Works* · At the UN: "Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly" watch ▶ 20:28
2. Donald Trump (clip), *Daniel Davis / Deep Dive* · At the UN: "Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival" watch ▶ 23:02
3. Donald Trump (clip), *Daniel Davis / Deep Dive* · "I believe we'll make a deal right after the election" watch ▶ 23:10
4. Douglas Macgregor, *Judging Freedom* · The message of the speech: "Either submit or we will annihilate." watch ▶ 21:27
5. Douglas Macgregor, *Judging Freedom* · The plan is to stockpile weapons and aircraft for a massive assault on Iran after the midterms watch ▶ 7:28
6. Anthony Aguilar, *Dialogue Works* · After the midterms Washington goes right back into striking Iran watch ▶ 19:01
7. Anthony Aguilar, *Dialogue Works* · What mechanism enforces Israel leaving Lebanon, Syria and Gaza? watch ▶ 12:22
8. Anthony Aguilar, *Dialogue Works* · Iran will not capitulate on ending the war on all fronts; neither the US nor Israel intends to comply watch ▶ 16:41
9. Anthony Aguilar, *Dialogue Works* · "in for a multi-year conflict" watch ▶ 47:36
10. Karen Kwiatkowski, *Judging Freedom* · The military can fight for two and a half days and then must pause watch ▶ 5:33
11. Karen Kwiatkowski, *Judging Freedom* · "We don't have staying power." watch ▶ 5:43
12. Karen Kwiatkowski, *Judging Freedom* · No moral or legal way Trump could annihilate Iran watch ▶ 3:44
13. John Mearsheimer, *Judging Freedom* · "This is poppycock. We have no military option." watch ▶ 17:57
14. John Mearsheimer, *Judging Freedom* · No meaningful military option today, tomorrow or after the election watch ▶ 17:34
15. John Mearsheimer, *Judging Freedom* · The Houthis are the last people on the planet to pick a fight with watch ▶ 14:03
16. Daniel Davis, *Daniel Davis / Deep Dive* · "It is hard to overstate how much damage President Trump did today" watch ▶ 0:01
17. Daniel Davis, *Daniel Davis / Deep Dive* · On the earlier campaign: "we got our ass handed to us" watch ▶ 21:38
18. Daniel Davis, *Daniel Davis / Deep Dive* · "His word means literally nothing to anyone." watch ▶ 16:06
19. Daniel Davis, *Daniel Davis / Deep Dive* · "He's setting himself up here as God." watch ▶ 23:27
20. Mohammad Marandi, *Dialogue Works* · Iran has shifted to a wartime economy watch ▶ 4:19
21. Mohammad Marandi, *Dialogue Works* · The more they strangle Iran, the more they push their own proxies toward instability watch ▶ 25:01
22. Mohammad Marandi, *Dialogue Works* · Escalating before the midterms would hurt Republican chances watch ▶ 31:56
23. Douglas Macgregor, *Judging Freedom* · "we Americans have lost control of our own government" watch ▶ 4:42
24. Douglas Macgregor, *Judging Freedom* · Of Trump: "I have concluded he's not in charge." watch ▶ 19:25
25. Chas Freeman, *Judging Freedom* · Of the Gulf states: "we can't protect them" watch ▶ 21:04
26. Chas Freeman, *Judging Freedom* · Much of the world blames Washington, not Iran, for the shutdown in oil supplies watch ▶ 21:54
27. Trita Parsi, *Glenn Diesen* · Iranian officials believe they are already at war with NATO watch ▶ 25:50
28. Alexander Mercouris, *Alexander Mercouris* · No ceasefire in the energy war; grid strikes continue through winter watch ▶ 42:07
29. Alexander Mercouris, *Alexander Mercouris* · "Ukraine has no air defense to all intents and purposes." watch ▶ 52:28

By Ruins Report, a daily synthesis of what our tracked analysts said, not original reporting. Every numbered claim is sourced, dated, and timestamped above.