- WIADOMOŚCI
A US nuclear strike on Iran? The greatest threat could be to Ukraine
Reports of a possible US nuclear strike against Iran currently originate from a single journalist, Tucker Carlson, who has repeatedly circulated information subsequently found to be false. These claims should therefore be treated with considerable scepticism. There is no independent confirmation that Donald Trump’s administration is preparing to use nuclear weapons.
This does not, however, mean that the issue can simply be dismissed. The consequences of such a decision would extend far beyond the Middle East.
The timing of these reports is also important. Parliamentary elections were held in Israel on 27 October, after which Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc secured 53 seats, falling short of the 61 required for a majority. Meanwhile, the US congressional elections are scheduled for 3 November.
Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran. The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program. 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. Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. After last week’s election results, he can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics and brokers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the Knesset. Otherwise, he is out as prime minister and on his way to ignominy, investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war. To that end, he’s applied maximum pressure to his closest allies in the administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper. Both oppose a negotiated settlement to the war they’ve so grievously mismanaged; both are pushing to restart major combat operations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA director John Ratcliffe are also following Netanyahu’s lead, as are leaders of the Democratic Party. In a recent meeting on the subject, former president Barack Obama said he opposes the current Iran peace deal being drafted in Doha. The rest of America’s longtime allies in the Middle East are terrified by the prospect of more war. On September 27th, Netanyahu flew secretly to Abu Dhabi to enlist the UAE in his lobbying effort for a final attack on Iran. The Emiratis refused. After eight months of conflict, Gulf economies are teetering. So are global energy and fertilizer markets. They won’t recover soon. Globally, there are a total of about 850 supertankers used to transport oil from producers to the rest of the world. In October alone, 11 of them were badly damaged in Hormuz. At this pace, a global depression is imminent. A nuclear strike would radically accelerate the destruction. Fallout from a ground explosion at Pickax Mountain would contaminate the Persian Gulf, poisoning the water supply for 100 million people. And those are just some of the immediate consequences for the region. The rest of the world is every bit as exposed. No country other than the United States has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Some would like to. An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent. The Russians have already told at least two other governments that an American nuclear strike on Iran would free them to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other, as would North Korea against Seoul. After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable. That war would be short and final. We’ve been sleepwalking toward this moment for months. Since February, the administration has quietly rewritten America’s nuclear doctrine to make first use of so-called “battlefield nukes” easier and therefore more likely. No one in Washington in either party seems bothered by this. Now we’re on the brink of it. Close observers say Trump is likely to decide by next weekend whether or not to use nuclear weapons. That would be November 7, six days from now. To his credit, he’s hesitating. At the moment, Trump is listening to his vice president, JD Vance, and to his envoy and friend Steve Witkoff, both of whom argue a deal with Iran can be made. They’re right, though it won’t be simple. The Iranians are famously frustrating to negotiate with under any circumstances, and elements of that government have become more radical since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family were killed in February. After decades of isolation, even relatively moderate Iranian leaders seem confused by how decisions are made in the West. (There is a widespread belief in Tehran, for example, that the United States government controls Israel.) But overall, people who have spoken to decision-makers in Iran say there is consensus there that more war is bad for everyone and a deal is worth making. One group that hasn’t been consulted so far is the global population — the hundreds of millions of people who will be killed along with their children if Trump is pushed by Netanyahu into launching a nuclear strike next week. Now would be the time for them to speak up.
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) November 2, 2026
The political context of these reports cannot therefore be overlooked, although there is no evidence to suggest that they constitute a deliberate leak. Information concerning a potential nuclear strike could influence both the political debate in Washington and negotiations over Iran’s future.
From an Eastern European perspective, however, the most serious threat concerns Russia and Ukraine. If the United States were to become the first country to use nuclear weapons in an armed conflict since 1945, Moscow could regard this as a precedent that would make it easier to justify its own nuclear strike against Ukraine.
Russia has employed nuclear blackmail for years, and in November 2024 it revised its nuclear doctrine, lowering the declared threshold for the use of such weapons. An American strike against Iran would not automatically lead to a Russian nuclear attack, but it could significantly weaken the political barrier that has so far constrained such actions. This is precisely what we should fear most.
Nevertheless, I do not believe President Trump will decide to cross this line. As recently as 16 October, he publicly ruled out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, pointing instead to the possibility of a conventional military operation.
Israel must also recognise that a nuclear strike would not simply represent another stage of escalation, but the crossing of the final threshold. Following such an action, it would no longer be possible to speak of a conventional increase in military pressure.
The threat would extend beyond Iran to other Arab states, particularly those in the Gulf region, which could potentially face radioactive contamination, economic destabilisation and further escalation.
The most dangerous consequence, however, would be the creation of a new international precedent. If the country possessing the world’s most powerful military were to use nuclear weapons against an adversary that does not possess them, other nuclear powers could invoke that example to justify their own actions.
For Ukraine, this would mean an increased threat from Russia, which might conclude that the use of nuclear weapons was no longer an absolute political taboo.
This is why even a single, highly questionable report warrants serious analysis, but it should not be presented as evidence of an imminent attack.
Unfortunately, I do believe that Russia may be willing to demonstrate its power by launching a nuclear strike against western Ukraine, particularly if the Kremlin leadership becomes desperate to preserve its hold on power. Such a scenario cannot be ruled out, especially if Moscow believes that its political survival is at stake.
