Iran Rebukes Canada’s Carney Over Trump’s ‘Annihilation’ Threat
TEHRAN, IRAN — WEB DESK: Iran has sharply criticised Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney over his response to US President Donald Trump’s threat to “annihilate” Iran if a peace agreement is not reached, adding another diplomatic dispute to tensions surrounding the ongoing US-Iran conflict.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei accused Carney on Thursday of downplaying Trump’s remarks by characterising them as the “language of war,” rather than directly condemning the US president’s threat.
Baghaei said in a post on X that Carney had chosen to “appease Washington” instead of condemning what Tehran considers US aggression. He also accused countries aligning themselves with Washington of sacrificing their independence in the face of American power. These comments represent the Iranian government spokesperson’s political characterisation of Canada’s position, rather than independently established conclusions.
The dispute stems from Trump’s address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday.
During his speech, Trump warned that Iran could face “annihilation” if Tehran failed to reach a peace agreement with Washington. Reuters and the Associated Press independently reported the threat as part of Trump’s broader defence of US military action against Iran and his push for a negotiated settlement.
Carney was subsequently asked about Trump’s rhetoric. The Canadian prime minister said there was currently a war underway and characterised Trump as speaking in the “language of war.” Iran objected to that formulation, arguing that Ottawa should instead have explicitly condemned the US president’s remarks.
Diplomatic Opening Remains Despite Rhetoric
The exchange comes at a particularly sensitive point in the US-Iran conflict, with both Washington and Tehran simultaneously using confrontational rhetoric and exploring diplomatic options.
Iran has said it is prepared to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within a week if Washington reduces military pressure and lifts its blockade of Iranian ports. A senior Iranian official told Reuters that Tehran’s delegation at the UN General Assembly had authority to pursue negotiations aimed at ending hostilities.
Trump, meanwhile, has publicly indicated that an agreement remains possible despite his threats against Tehran.
The two sides, however, remain divided over the conditions for ending the conflict. Iran has prioritised lifting the US naval blockade and reopening Hormuz, while Washington continues to emphasise restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear programme and other security demands.
The confrontation also continues to disrupt one of the world’s most important shipping routes. Preliminary data cited in the Tribune report showed only 10 commodity vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday, compared with a 10-day moving average of about 17. Before the war began on February 28, roughly 125 large commercial vessels typically used the strait each day.
Baghaei’s criticism of Carney therefore comes amid a broader struggle over how governments are publicly responding to the conflict and to increasingly forceful rhetoric from Washington and Tehran.
For editorial purposes, the competing statements require clear attribution: Trump’s “annihilation” remark was his own warning; Carney’s “language of war” description was Canada’s response; and Baghaei’s allegations of appeasement and aggression represent Tehran’s political position.
