Image source: Apnews

White House denies nuclear plans as Trump's ultimatum to Iran expires

The U.S. government denies the use of nuclear weapons after Trump's apocalyptic threats; an ultimatum on an agreement with Tehran expires amid rising attacks, reprisals and regional tensions.

The U.S. president issued an ultimatum threatening a massive strike on Iranian infrastructure, including possibly hitting targets that would endanger civilian welfare; the White House however has denied formal plans to use nuclear weapons.

Trump asked Tehran to negotiate the opening of the maritime passage by a fixed deadline, warning that otherwise an offensive on key infrastructure would follow.

The IRGC responded by threatening reprisals that could extend beyond the region and vowed to strike Washington's and its allies' energy assets if its “red lines” are crossed.

The United States confirmed raids on military facilities on Kharg Island, the main hub for Iran's oil exports, while Israel claimed attacks on bridges and railways in Iran.

Public statements via Truth Social and ambiguous remarks by the vice president have fueled fears and domestic calls (including from Congress) for clarifications on legal limits and the potential risk of war crimes.

What position do you feel closer to?

Trump hawks

Washington's denial empties Trump's threats of meaning and risks making America less feared just as Tehran tests the limits of deterrence.

Prudent U.S. institutions

The denial of nuclear use is essential to reassure allies and the public, but now every effort must focus on de‑escalation and reaching an agreement with Tehran to avoid a further regional descent into catastrophe.

🦅

🏛️

Whether you already have a strong opinion or still don't know what to think, take the quiz and see where you really stand.

Deep dive

Show 10 aggregated sources

Compare how 10 sources cover this story

apnews.com

Trump uses annihilation rhetoric to threaten Iran on the eve of ultimatum deadline

Direct quotes (AI-translated)

Trump threatened to blow up every bridge and power plant in Iran, actions that some experts say could constitute war crimes.

Trump warned: "An entire civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back to life," if Iran does not accept the agreement on the Strait of Hormuz.

Experts say that striking bridges and power plants can be a war crime, depending on the nature of the targets and the proportionality of the strikes.

Democratic leaders called the threat to “eradicate an entire civilization” a shock to the conscience and a betrayal of America's founding values.

aljazeera.com

United States deny nuclear plan as ultimatum on 'civilizing' Iran deadline nears

Direct quotes (AI-translated)

The White House denied having plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran as Trump's ultimatum deadline approached.

Trump warned that “an entire civilization will die tonight,” using apocalyptic language to push Iran to capitulate.

Legal experts say that striking civilian infrastructure could constitute a war crime.

The IRGC has threatened to strike infrastructure in the U.S. and partner countries, extending the response “beyond the region” if Washington crosses its red lines.

apnews.com

Trump's threatened destruction of Iran's power plants could be considered a war crime, experts say

Direct quotes (AI-translated)

At a press conference Trump threatened to blow up all bridges and power plants in Iran, an action some military law experts say could constitute a war crime.

Trump's threat is so broad it appears not to consider civilian harm, prompting Democrats, some UN officials and military law scholars to say such attacks would violate international law.

A UN spokesperson warned that attacking such infrastructure is prohibited by international law, even if they were military targets, if the risk of collateral civilian harm is excessive.

Republican Senator Joni Ernst insists Trump is “absolutely not” threatening a war crime, while Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen says it would be a “textbook war crime.”

apnews.com

U.S. and Iran agree to a 2‑week ceasefire as Trump backs off his threats

Direct quotes (AI-translated)

President Trump threatened to blow up every bridge and power plant in Iran, an action some military law experts said could constitute a war crime.

Trump backtracked on his threats to launch devastating attacks against Iran when the U.S. and Iran agreed to a two‑week ceasefire that includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

The Supreme National Security Council of Iran said it accepted the ceasefire and will negotiate with the United States in Pakistan starting Friday.

Trump's threats, which did not appear to take civilian harm into account, prompted Democrats in Congress, UN officials and military law scholars to say such attacks would violate international law.

theguardian.com

Donald Trump says ‘an entire civilization will die’ if Iran ignores his demands

Direct quotes (AI-translated)

Trump warned that Iran's “entire civilization will die tonight” if Tehran does not comply with his demands, threatening mass destruction.

The White House has ruled out using nuclear weapons, but threats to strike civilian infrastructure fuel doubts about possible war crimes.

Iran's UN representative speaks of “incitement to war crimes – and potentially genocide” by Trump.

Israel warns in Persian its citizens to avoid trains, foreshadowing bombings of lines and stations normally used by civilians.

x.com

State Department (@StateDept) on X

Direct quotes (AI-translated)

"THE PRESIDENT TRUMP: Iran has until tomorrow at 8 to reach a deal."

"Afterwards, they will have no more power plants nor bridges."

The message explicitly threatens Iranian civilian infrastructure as leverage to force a deal.

The State Department amplifies the statement without providing additional diplomatic, legal or humanitarian context.

x.com

White House (@WhiteHouse) on X

Direct quotes (AI-translated)

"OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF IRAN:"

x.com

JD Vance (@JDVance) on X

Direct quotes (AI-translated)

President Trump will not drag the United States into years‑long conflict without a clear objective.

Iran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.

This is the objective of this operation and President Trump will see it through.

x.com

Ministry of Defense | MOD UAE (@modgovae) on X

Direct quotes (AI-translated)

On April 7, 2026 the UAE air defense systems intercepted 1 ballistic missile and 11 UAVs launched from Iran.

Since the start of these blatant Iranian attacks, UAE air defenses engaged 520 ballistic missiles, 26 cruise missiles and 2,221 UAVs.

Since the start of the attacks, the toll is 2 martyrs of the armed forces, one Moroccan civilian and 10 civilian victims of various nationalities.

The Ministry of Defense states it is fully ready to face any threat to protect the country's sovereignty, security and stability.

x.com

AFP news agency (@AFP) on X

Direct quotes (AI-translated)

Oil prices rose and stocks fell after U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran's Kharg oil terminal.

Investors are bracing for the deadline of Trump's ultimatum to Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Otherwise, Iran faces “devastating attacks,” according to the threat attributed to President Trump.

The post directly links military operations and political threats to immediate market reactions.

Fact checking

Sources agree on Trump's ultimatum, threats to destroy bridges/power plants and fears of war crimes (AP, AP, The Guardian, Al Jazeera). The use of nuclear weapons remains only feared, not proven.

Common Distortions

Watch out for these common framings

Confusing hyperbolic threats with already made operational decisions: Apocalyptic rhetoric is sometimes treated as proof that annihilation attacks have already been decided, without distinguishing between pressure language and actual military orders.

Assuming military escalation will lead to nuclear war: Some analyses implicitly suggest that the spiral of threats almost inevitably leads to a nuclear strike, skipping intermediate steps and other escalation or de‑escalation options.

Automatically projecting criminal liability from threats to war crimes: Threats to civilian infrastructure are sometimes presented as war crimes already committed, without clarifying that international law distinguishes between threat, planning and execution.

Assuming that hitting infrastructure is always illegal a priori: Some narratives imply that any attack on bridges or power plants violates international law, without explaining the role of criteria such as military use, proportionality and precautions.

Emphasizing catastrophic economic scenarios as the only possible outcome: Possible consequences for energy markets are sometimes described as an inevitable global recession, overlooking the variety of economic outcomes and available mitigating measures.

Does anything look off?

Explore every side of the debate. Form opinions you can defend.

Product

Glance Extension Shield Research Support

Company

Ale's Newsletter Carlo's Newsletter LinkedIn Privacy Policy Terms of Service

Made with care for a less polarized world.