"One interpretation is a threat with genocide."

That is indeed true. But it is not the only interpretation, although it has been widely reported in terms that implied that it was. The non-genocidal understanding of the words apears to have been that taken by ordinary Iranians, talking to Western reporters in Iran.

It was clearly a very stupid thing for the Iranian president to say, and any leader who is capable of that kind of stupidity is a danger, most especially to his own people.

I am reminded of when Bush shot his mouth off about how it was time to wage "a crusade" in response to 911.

At that time it would have been a very good idea for anyone writing in a Muslim context to explain that Bush's use of the term did not have to be interpreted in what would probably seen by many (most?) Muslims as the obvious way, as indicating a determination to wage a holy war against Islam on the part of a Christendom with massive miltary superiority, and equipped with a horrifying arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

In the same way it is a good idea now to suggest that the language used by another loose-mouthed president need not mean what it has been widely taken as meaning.