TEHRAN - U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat to bomb Iran back to “the Stone Ages” has triggered fierce backlash from Tehran, drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers in Washington, unsettled global markets, and prompted concern from leaders around the world, marking one of the most controversial developments in the five‑week‑long conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran.

In a nationally televised address in Washington on Thursday morning (Iran time), Trump reiterated familiar arguments he has made since the joint U.S.-Israeli aggression began on February 28 — that the war is necessary, that U.S. forces are succeeding, that it must continue, and that it will soon conclude. However, the speech offered no clear timeline for ending the war or negotiating a settlement, and instead delivered some of the starkest rhetoric yet about the potential scope of future military action. Trump warned that if Iran did not agree to U.S. terms, the United States would “hit them very hard over the next two to three weeks” and could take the country “back to the Stone Ages, where they belong.”

The remark — widely reported and quoted by international media — was accompanied by a suggestion that American forces might strike Iranian energy and electricity infrastructure, a move that could profoundly affect civilian life. Trump also encouraged nations dependent on oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz to “build up some delayed courage” regarding the shipping lane, though he offered no guarantee it would reopen soon.

Iranian officials reacted with a unified voice. The Iranian Foreign Ministry condemned the “Stone Age” threat as a violent and unlawful statement whose goal was to instill terror among civilians and weaken societal resilience, calling it tantamount to a war crime because it targeted vital infrastructure whose destruction would disrupt the livelihood and survival of the Iranian population.

Iran’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations echoed those sentiments, saying the threat “reflects ignorance, not strength,” and argued that Iran’s 7,000‑year civilization cannot be destroyed through aerial bombardment. Iranian diplomats emphasized that global contributions from Iranian scholars and cultural heritage cannot be erased by military force.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi took to social media to counter the historic framing of that threat. He wrote on X that: “There’s one striking difference between the present and the Stone Age: there was no oil or gas being pumped in the Middle East back then. Are POTUS and Americans who put him in office sure that they want to turn back the clock?”

The military response from Iran’s armed forces was equally forceful. Ebrahim Jolfaghari, spokesperson for the Armed Forces General Staff’s Khatam al‑Anbia Central Headquarters, warned that Iran would continue fighting until the United States and its allies faced “permanent regret and surrender,” and pledged “follow‑up responses that are far more powerful, extensive and devastating than anything seen before.” He asserted that U.S. and Israeli intelligence underestimated Iran’s capabilities and that American forces risked being drawn deeper into a costly quagmire.

Trump’s speech also produced a wide range of reactions in Washington. Democratic lawmakers condemned Trump’s rhetoric as reckless and dangerous. Representative Yasmin Ansari called the “Stone Age” threat “very hateful, frightening, and misleading,” particularly when aimed at a country of more than 90 million people. Senator Chris Van Hollen accused the president of lying to the American people about the progress of the war, noting that Trump had claimed U.S. objectives were close to completion weeks earlier — a claim that, in his view, had not been borne out. Another Democratic legislator, Chet Molton, warned that Trump’s approach endangered U.S. service members, arguing that “misguided and ignorant” policy invited escalation rather than resolution.

Many analysts in Washington, regardless of political affiliation, noted the absence of a clearly articulated diplomatic strategy and questioned what specific concessions Washington hoped to secure from Iran.

Internationally, leaders also weighed in. Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin described Trump’s “Stone Age” remark as “unacceptable” and warned that a prolonged conflict would have significant impacts on civilians and the global economy, particularly energy markets, which have already been disrupted. Martin stressed the urgent need for an end to hostilities and for protection of innocent lives.

Global markets responded sharply after Trump’s address. Oil prices surged as investors reacted to the escalation in rhetoric and uncertainty over the conflict’s trajectory, reflecting fears of disrupted supply from the Middle East and wider economic consequences. Some markets experienced risk‑off trading as stocks weakened and safe‑haven assets drew interest.

The United Nations and other international organizations voiced concern about the humanitarian implications of expanded military action. UN officials emphasized the need to protect civilian infrastructure and avoid a broader regional war that could destabilize the Middle East further. There were warnings that striking key services such as power grids, water systems, and transportation networks could produce humanitarian crises well beyond the battlefield.

Humanitarian law experts have also weighed in, noting that deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure, unless justified by direct military necessity, are prohibited under international humanitarian law. Targeting energy and electricity systems, which serve essential civilian functions, could risk severe civilian suffering and violate protections afforded to non‑combatants. The potential for such attacks to disrupt hospitals, water and sanitation, food distribution, and daily life has heightened global alarm.

The conflict itself has already exacted a heavy toll. Independent reporting indicates that U.S.-Israeli airstrikes have caused thousands of casualties and significant damage to infrastructure in Iran. At least one major civilian structure — a bridge connecting Tehran to the suburb of Karaj — was destroyed in a recent airstrike attributed to U.S. forces, marking a notable escalation toward targeting public infrastructure. Iran condemned that strike as unjustified and part of a broader pattern of attacks on civilian targets.

Despite his strong rhetoric, Trump’s speech did not offer a clear path to ending the conflict. He reiterated that the United States was making progress toward its objectives, but provided no schedule for de‑escalation or peace negotiations. Several international commentators and policy experts have criticized the lack of an articulated exit strategy, suggesting that the absence of a diplomatic endgame could prolong the war and increase suffering on all sides.

In the United States, public opinion appears increasingly wary of deeper involvement. Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose deploying ground troops to Iran and are concerned about the financial and human costs of the conflict. Many respondents believe the situation may further destabilize the Middle East and worsen living conditions for ordinary Iranians, reflecting widespread unease over the direction of U.S. policy.

For now, Trump’s ‘Stone Age’ rhetoric signals an escalation toward a campaign resembling carpet bombing — deliberately striking broad civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, power grids and energy systems — a tactic that not only risks mass civilian suffering and breaches of international humanitarian law but also strengthens Tehran’s resolve, undermines any diplomatic off ramp, and deepens global political and economic instability.