Contrary to Tucker Carlson’s claims, it is extraordinarily unlikely that President Donald Trump will order a nuclear strike on Iran. Such a strike would be militarily unnecessary and would ignite a profound domestic and foreign policy crisis. Trump would probably be forced out of power.
Not so, says Carlson. In a post on X on Sunday evening, the podcaster issued an alarming warning.
“Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran,” Carlson wrote. “The target would be Pickaxe Mountain in central Iran… no conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place. The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one. ‘Bibi calls Trump about it every day,’ says an informed observer.”
I don’t think so.
First, while Netanyahu is certainly pushing Trump to resume military action against Iran, it makes no sense that he would be pushing Trump to use nuclear weapons. While the threat posed by the Pickaxe Mountain facility is real, it can be constrained by conventional attacks that seal its entrances and ventilation shafts.
Yes, seeking to retain power following inconclusive elections, Netanyahu has a vested political interest in new U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran. Indeed, just prior to the election, Israel’s military chief appeared to block Netanyahu from launching an attack designed to bolster the prime minister’s electoral prospects. But Netanyahu is not an idiot. He would know that using a nuclear weapon against Pickaxe Mountain would be both unnecessary and catastrophic for the international standing and security of the U.S. and Israel.
Notwithstanding Trump’s penchant for projecting machismo, he is similarly unlikely to view a nuclear strike as a viable option. Trump thrives on using force to reach public agreements or new settlements. He has been frustrated by the Iran war’s impact on his popularity and the economy. In turn, while dropping a nuclear weapon might appeal to Trump as a way of bolstering perceptions of his aggressive unpredictability, it would unify an otherwise fractured Iranian regime around the belief that it had no choice but to build a nuclear weapon or cease to exist. The diplomatic accord Trump pursues would go up in smoke alongside the mountain.
It should also be noted that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would strongly protest any such order. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine would warn that the use of even a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon would be unnecessary, grossly disproportionate to the threat, and potentially unlawful. He would also remind Trump that it would shred the post-1945 deterrent principle against the first use of nuclear weapons (the U.S. retains a first-use policy only to preempt an imminent nuclear or catastrophic attack).
Carlson notes the costs to this principle in his own post: Were the U.S. to use a tactical nuclear weapon against Iran, Russia would feel unrestrained in using a nuclear weapon against Ukraine, as would North Korea against South Korea during any future war. Indeed, Trump authorized the development of tactical nuclear weapons not for first-use purposes but to disabuse Russia of the notion that it could use tactical nuclear weapons without a commensurate riposte.
THE UK KEEPS CALM AND CARRIES ON TOWARD FRENCH-STYLE DISASTER
Finally, it should be quite obvious that using nuclear weapons against Iran would cause catastrophic damage to America’s standing. It would force diplomatic ruptures with even the closest of allies as their democratically elected governments responded to public revulsion. It would thus be a gift from heaven to China, wholly reinforcing the Communist Party’s counteroffer to the world of often unpleasant but predictable engagement. And it would provoke a domestic political crisis as the people, Congress, and ultimately Trump’s own Cabinet, questioned his mental faculties.
Trump would probably be forced from power via impeachment or the invocation of the 25th Amendment. After all, how many people would then think, “If he’s capable of using a nuclear weapon against Iran, what’s to stop him from starting a nuclear World War III?”
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
