Trump says he has ‘made peace’ while threatening Iran and inviting Putin

What happened this week

Four things happened, each documented: Trump’s UN speech on 22 September, which included both a claim to have made peace and a threat against Iran;^[1][2] US-Iran talks through mediators the same day;^[3] Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s announcement that Putin would be invited to the G20 in Miami;^[4] and the continuing effect of Trump’s February 2025 sanctions on the ICC, which cut its chief prosecutor off from his Microsoft email.^[5][6] This piece checks each, then the connections drawn between them.

Verdicts at a glance

• True

  Chyron: Trump touted being a peacemaker while asking if he should annihilate Iran

  He said “while others have spoken of peace, I have made peace,” and asked whether to “annihilate the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly.”

• Unproven

  Trump: “I have made peace”

  Judged against this week’s record, the Iran war is unresolved and Russia’s war in Ukraine continues. Other deals he cited are outside this check.

• Misleading

  Post: Trump made Microsoft turn off official email accounts of high-ranking ICC members

  One official, prosecutor Karim Khan, was disconnected after US sanctions. Microsoft says it worked with the ICC through that process and never suspended services to the court.

• True

  Post: Putin is invited to the G20 in Miami

  Rubio announced the invitation for the December summit.

• Unproven

  Implied: the fight with the ICC is about protecting Putin

  The sanctions order cites the court’s actions against Israel and US personnel and does not mention Russia. US hostility to the ICC dates to a 2002 law.

• Contested

  Implied: threatening to annihilate Iran contradicts peacemaking

  The threat came with a deal offer and mediated talks, a pattern of coercive diplomacy. The language, “drive them into hell with no chance of survival,” describes total war.

“Annihilate” Iran, or make a deal

The chyron is accurate. Trump told the General Assembly: “I have a big decision to make: Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before … or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly?”^[2] He continued: “Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?”^[1] In the same speech he predicted: “I believe we’ll make a deal right after the election because it doesn’t make sense for them not to.”^[1]

The threat was not the only track. The same day, US envoy Steve Witkoff wrote that “we engaged in lengthy talks with the Iranian delegation through the mediators, who shuttled between the two sides throughout the day.”^[3] Axios described the conflict as hanging “in limbo.”^[2]

The ICC and Microsoft

In February 2025, Trump signed an order imposing sanctions on the ICC. Its stated basis: the court “has engaged in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel,” including “baseless arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant.”^[7] Its annex names one person: “Karim Khan, Prosecutor of the ICC.”^[7]

In May 2025 the Associated Press reported that Khan “has lost access to his email, and his bank accounts have been frozen,” and that, according to ICC staffers, “Microsoft, for example, cancelled Khan’s email address, forcing the prosecutor to move to Proton Mail.”^[5]

Who switched it off has been disputed since. In February 2026 a Microsoft executive told a UK parliamentary committee it was “the ICC’s decision… not Microsoft’s.” Microsoft then apologized to the committee “for the inaccuracy” and said: “We were in touch with the ICC throughout the process that resulted in the disconnection of its sanctioned official from Microsoft services. At no point did Microsoft cease or suspend its services to the ICC.”^[6]

So the post is right that US sanctions cost the ICC’s top prosecutor his Microsoft email. It overstates the rest. It was one sanctioned official, not “official email accounts of high ranking ICC members,” and the record shows a sanctions process in which Microsoft and the court both took part, not a direct order from Trump to Microsoft.

Putin and the G20

The Kyiv Independent reported that the United States “will invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to the G20 Summit in Miami this December,” as Rubio revealed.^[4] Putin has been the subject of an ICC arrest warrant since March 2023, issued in the situation in Ukraine.^[8] The United States is not a party to the court’s founding treaty, which the sanctions order itself notes, so it has no treaty obligation to arrest him.^[7]

“While others have spoken of peace”

Trump’s central claim at the UN, as CBS reported it, was comparative: “While others have spoken of peace, I have made peace.”^[9] He highlighted peace deals he has worked on and progress on his 20-point plan for Gaza.^[1]

Compared against: the conflicts in the news this week. This check does not assess each deal Trump has cited over his term; it asks what this week’s record shows.

By this week’s record, “I have made peace” describes work in progress on the three largest conflicts in the news. We rate it Unproven rather than False because deals he cites elsewhere are not assessed here, and because the Iran and Gaza talks could still produce agreements.

What the posts imply

Implied: the ICC fight is about protecting Putin (Unproven)

No evidence we found supports it. The sanctions order states its reasons, the ICC’s actions against Israel and US personnel, and does not mention Russia or Putin.^[7] US hostility to the court predates Trump: the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, enacted in August 2002 with bipartisan support, authorizes the president to use “all means necessary,” a phrase understood to include military force, to free Americans detained by the ICC.^[10] A stated reason is not proof of motive, but a claim about hidden motive needs evidence, and the post offers only the timing of two unrelated events.

Implied: threatening annihilation contradicts peacemaking (Contested)

The case that it does: a threat to “annihilate” a country and “drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations” describes the destruction of a society, not a negotiating position.^[1] Coming in the same speech as “I have made peace,” it is why the chyron landed.

The case that it does not: Trump paired the threat with an offer that would let Iran “rebuild and create a far greater country,” and his envoys held mediated talks the same day.^[2][3] Threatening overwhelming force to extract a deal is coercive diplomacy, a long-standing strategy. Its test is whether a deal follows, which Trump predicts will happen after the November election.

Both readings fit the facts, so the verdict turns on results that have not arrived.

Implications

A pattern the record supports. Across this week, the approach is consistent: engage adversary leaders directly (Putin, Iran through mediators), threaten maximum force, and constrain institutions that judge leaders (the ICC). That is a documented style. Calling it peacemaking or its opposite is a forecast about outcomes.

For people sharing the posts. The accurate version is strong enough on its own: US sanctions cut off the ICC prosecutor’s email, and the administration has invited an ICC-indicted leader to a summit. Adding a motive the evidence does not show, protecting Putin, gives critics an easy rebuttal.

What to watch. Whether Iran talks produce a deal after 3 November, as Trump predicted; whether Putin attends the Miami G20 in December; and what becomes of the ICC’s cases under continued US sanctions.^[1][4] Microsoft’s role has also fed a push in Europe toward non-US cloud services.^[6]