‘Annihilate’ vs ‘crushing’ attacks: Why Iran, US up rhetoric amid talks

On the opening day of the United Nations General Assembly, President Donald Trump combined a stark military threat toward Iran with news that US representatives had held substantive talks with Iranian officials on the sidelines of the gathering. Speaking from the UN podium, Trump posed a binary choice for Iran and at one point used the word “annihilate,” while later telling reporters that envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner had a “very good” roughly three-hour meeting with Iranian delegates. Iran’s highest military body publicly dismissed the US president’s address and signalled readiness to retaliate. The Armed Forces General Staff, in comments carried by the Mehr news agency, described Trump’s remarks as an attempt to justify aggression and said Iran would be prepared to carry out strikes against the US and Israel that would be “more crushing and less predictable” than earlier actions in the seven-month conflict. Despite the heated language, the UN sidelines provided a diplomatic opening: Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, participated in the talks alongside mediators shuttling between the two sides. US officials characterized the discussions as constructive, with Witkoff saying they were completed and expressing hope they would prove promising. Trump also indicated another meeting was likely “in the very near future,” and that there was momentum toward an agreement. Observers say the simultaneous escalation in rhetoric and engagement at the UN is strategic rather than contradictory. Andreas Krieg, an associate professor at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera that inflammatory public language can form part of bargaining tactics — each government aims to shape domestic and international perceptions. For the US, strong rhetoric supports a narrative of applying pressure; for Iran, defiant responses serve to assert leverage and portray resistance to external coercion. The talks come amid broader pressures: the nearly seven-month war has disrupted oil markets and driven fuel price increases in the US, while US sanctions and a naval blockade have squeezed Iran’s economy. Key negotiation points include Washington’s demand for unfettered navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and an end to Iran’s nuclear programme, and Tehran’s insistence on lifting economic measures and the maritime blockade. Both sides are therefore balancing military signaling, domestic politics and diplomatic engagement as they seek a resolution.