When Donald Trump declared in one of his threatening statements that he could, if necessary, “bring Iran back to the Stone Age,” many interpreted the remark merely as a military threat directed at a specific country. Yet the deeper meaning of this statement lies not in its military message but in the political logic that underpins it. The central issue is not whether the United States has the capability to devastate another country; rather, it is what kind of view of the international order makes such a threat possible—or even appear normal. If one examines the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy in recent years, it becomes increasingly clear that the threat of “returning a country to the Stone Age” reflects a deeper transformation: the gradual erosion of the rules that have governed relations among states since the end of World War II. From this perspective, what is unfolding is not simply a threat against Iran but a challenge to the entire international system—a system that, if its rules collapse, could push the world back toward conditions in which raw power replaces law.

To understand the significance of this transformation, it is necessary to consider the role that international rules and institutions have played in the modern global order. After World War II, major powers reached the conclusion that unchecked rivalry without legal and institutional frameworks would inevitably drag the world back into cycles of devastating wars. The result of this historical experience was the creation of a network of international organizations, treaties, and norms designed to limit the use of force and establish mechanisms for resolving disputes among states. Within this framework, even great powers were compelled to provide some form of legal or institutional justification for their actions. For this reason, U.S. foreign policy in past decades—despite often facing strong criticism—generally attempted to frame its conduct within a legal or institutional narrative.

READ: Iran halts tanker traffic at Strait of Hormuz after Israeli strikes on Lebanon

In recent years, however—particularly during Trump’s presidency—this logic has eroded considerably. What has emerged is a clear disregard for multilateral mechanisms and the rules of international law.

Withdrawal from international agreements, weakening multilateral organizations, threatening allies, and prioritizing transactional bilateral relations over institutional cooperation all signal a shift in Washington’s view of the global order.

Withdrawal from international agreements, weakening multilateral organizations, threatening allies, and prioritizing transactional bilateral relations over institutional cooperation all signal a shift in Washington’s view of the global order.

In this new framework, foreign policy is no longer defined by shared rules but rather by relative power and political will.

For some observers inside the United States, this shift may appear to be a return to a form of “hard realism.” Yet on the global level its consequences are far more profound. When the most powerful country in the world openly declares that it can return another country to the Stone Age, it sends a far broader message to the international system: that the rules designed to constrain the use of force are no longer binding. Such a signal can quickly reshape the behavior of other powers. If law gives way to power, it is natural that other actors will abandon reliance on international institutions and instead prioritize military strength and hard deterrence.

Under such circumstances, competition among major powers enters a new phase—one in which distrust replaces cooperation. Countries will no longer have confidence in security commitments, multilateral agreements, or even the fundamental rules of international law. The result is a growing climate of uncertainty in global politics, a climate in which any regional crisis can rapidly escalate into a broader confrontation.

This is precisely the situation that the post–World War II international order sought to prevent. The experience of the first half of the twentieth century had demonstrated that a world without shared rules is one in which major powers expand their influence through force and smaller states engage in intense arms competition in order to survive. In such a world, collective security gives way to universal insecurity.

READ: Trump announces 2-week ceasefire with Iran

From this perspective, Trump’s threat against Iran must be analyzed within a much broader context. The issue is not how practical or serious the threat itself may be. The more important question is what such language implies for the future of global order.

When the leader of one of the world’s most powerful countries speaks of completely destroying the infrastructure of another state, it reinforces the perception that international politics has once again returned to a stage where raw power is the ultimate arbiter.

When the leader of one of the world’s most powerful countries speaks of completely destroying the infrastructure of another state, it reinforces the perception that international politics has once again returned to a stage where raw power is the ultimate arbiter.

In other words, if the “Stone Age” is understood not in technological terms but in political ones, it becomes possible to argue that the world may return to it long before bombs destroy cities—through the erosion of norms and rules. The Stone Age of international politics is a condition in which no common law exists to regulate the behavior of states and the only criterion guiding decisions is power. In such a system, the distinction between large and small countries becomes less meaningful; all states are compelled to rely primarily on power to secure their survival.

This development also carries serious implications for America’s own allies. Washington’s network of alliances in Europe and Asia has long rested on confidence in U.S. security commitments.

If the perception takes hold that American foreign policy is increasingly shaped by personal and momentary decisions rather than stable rules and long-term commitments, it is only natural that allies will begin to search for alternative options.

If the perception takes hold that American foreign policy is increasingly shaped by personal and momentary decisions rather than stable rules and long-term commitments, it is only natural that allies will begin to search for alternative options.

This trend is already visible in the growing debate over “strategic autonomy” in Europe and in efforts by several Asian countries to strengthen independent military capabilities.

At a deeper level, this transformation signals the gradual erosion of American soft power. A large part of Washington’s global influence has historically stemmed not from military force alone but from its ability to shape international rules and institutions. When the United States itself begins to undermine those very rules, it effectively weakens one of the most important sources of its own power.

Thus, the threat to return Iran to the Stone Age must be viewed in a broader mirror. It is not merely about a single country but about the future of the global order itself. If the most powerful actor in the international system concludes that it no longer needs common rules, the world may quickly enter a phase in which great-power competition unfolds without institutional constraints.

Ultimately, the central paradox may lie here: the country that once portrayed itself as the architect of the post–World War II international order now appears to be weakening the very order that served as a pillar of its power. If this trajectory continues, the threat of “returning someone to the Stone Age” will cease to be a political slogan directed at a particular country and instead become an accurate description of global conditions—a world in which law yields to force and cooperation gives way to unrestrained competition.

For this reason, the real question is not whether Iran can withstand such threats. The more important question is whether the international community will be able to defend the rules that have been constructed over the past seventy years to prevent the return of power politics. If the answer proves negative, what we are witnessing today will not simply be a threat against one country but the gradual return of the entire world to the very era humanity once struggled to leave behind.

OPINION: The dangerous logic of false flags: How Israel could draw allies into a wider war

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor