By Khashayar Joneidi, BBC Persian correspondent in Washington
Trump presented Iran with a stark choice at the UN General Assembly: reach an agreement with Washington and rebuild the country, or face the rapid “annihilation” of the Islamic Republic.
He then again predicted that a deal to end the war would probably follow the US midterm elections in November.
His remarks illustrated Trump’s familiar strategy of coercive diplomacy – keeping negotiations open while also threatening overwhelming force.
But his language blurred the distinction between destroying the political system and threatening Iran itself.
International law experts have previously expressed concern at what they called “alarming rhetoric” used by US officials, including Trump himself, who has posted that the US might “obliterate” Iran’s power plants.
References on Tuesday to leaving “no chance of survival” and “no hope” for future generations will likely have stoked similar alarm. There is also an irony in delivering this warning at the United Nations, an organisation founded to save future generations from war.
Yet the speech was not a declaration that diplomacy has failed.
It was an attempt to define the terms of possible negotiations: the US remains prepared to make a deal, but only under the shadow of an existential threat.
