Trump says he’s weighing whether to ‘annihilate’ Iran as UN meetings approach

President Donald Trump told Axios he is at a crossroads over whether to order military action against Iran, asking bluntly, “Do I want to go in and annihilate them or do I not?” The remark, reported by the New York Post, places an explicit, high‑stakes rhetorical question about large‑scale force at the center of U.S. decision-making as Trump prepares to meet Gulf leaders at the United Nations General Assembly.

Trump framed the choice as contingent on consultations with Gulf allies, saying he wants to “find out where they are and how they are doing” and adding, “Anything could happen with me.” The Post says the comments echo prior threats Trump has made toward Tehran since the war began and links his remarks to a recent spike in regional attacks, including strikes by Iran‑backed Houthis on Saudi Arabia that the Post reports threatened oil and gas supplies.

In the article Trump connects his deliberation to next week’s diplomatic meetings in New York, signaling he expects allied input to shape any decision.

This account is a single‑source report of Trump’s own words to Axios as quoted by the New York Post; the story documents his rhetorical framing and stated intent to consult Gulf partners but does not provide evidence that an operational campaign to “annihilate” Iran is imminent or approved.

The Post portrays the statements as part of a pattern of aggressive rhetoric, but it does not supply independent confirmation of specific military planning, timelines, or targets.

Readers should distinguish what Trump claimed he is weighing from documentary evidence of action: the record here is his public statement and the Post’s interpretation linking it to recent Houthi attacks. The article does not include comments from U.S. national security officials, Gulf leaders, or Iranian authorities, nor does it cite formal policy directives or orders.

Given that gap, the immediate consequence documented in the piece is political: increased scrutiny of Trump’s posture ahead of the U.N. meetings rather than a documented shift in force posture. How this plays out will depend on the consultations Trump previews and any subsequent formal decisions by U.S. national security bodies.

For now, the Post’s reporting leaves the outcome as a declared personal decision point by the president rather than a confirmed change in U.S. military operations.

• Only the New York Post is in this pack; it frames Trump’s remark as an imminent personal crossroads tied to U.N. consultations (per nypost.com).

• No other outlets provided corroboration or dispute; the likelihood or imminence of military action is unverified in the single-source report (per nypost.com).

• No source in this pack documents U.S. national security assessments, formal military planning, or statements from Gulf leaders or Iranian officials that would clarify whether strikes are operationally prepared.
• The article omits civilian casualty estimates or risk assessments that would result from any large-scale strike on Iran.
• The piece does not mention relevant international legal or diplomatic processes (e.g., U.N. Security Council deliberations) that would bear on authorizing major force.

• No differing numeric figures appear in the single source.

• The New York Post presents Trump’s statement as linked to recent Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia; however, the article does not document a direct causal chain from those attacks to a specific planned U.S. strike (per nypost.com).

• The New York Post attributes the quoted language and the decision framing directly to President Donald Trump speaking to Axios (per nypost.com).