Former U.S. President's counterterrorism advisor Joe Kent recently made a startling statement on a podcast: the United States might ultimately resort to nuclear weapons against Iran due to a shortage of conventional arms.
In April this year, Trump openly threatened Iran, saying that if Tehran refused America's demands, he would "eradicate Iranian civilization entirely." He later repeatedly vowed to destroy Iran’s power plants, bridges, and other civilian infrastructure.
After months of relentless pressure—combining air, sea, land operations and economic sanctions—the Iranian leadership not only survived but grew stronger with each round of conflict. Kent stated that if the U.S. is determined to overthrow Iran’s regime and force an "unconditional surrender," there are now only two remaining options: launching a full-scale ground invasion or using nuclear weapons.
Kent believes a ground offensive is utterly unrealistic. Iran’s vast territory and large population would trap U.S. forces in a quagmire from which they could never extricate themselves. In military simulations, the most likely outcome would be escalation toward "weapons of mass destruction." He speculates that the U.S. military might conduct a "limited nuclear strike" on Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities hidden deep in mountainous regions—demonstrating power without causing total annihilation.
At the end of last month, the U.S. suddenly halted plans for a new round of airstrikes against Iran. Media reports revealed that the Pentagon was nearly out of precision-guided missiles and interceptors. Although Trump and military officials vigorously denied this, the government quickly shifted its tone, announcing the launch of the "Economic D-Day"—the harshest financial blockade in history against Iran, even targeting foreign companies involved in laundering money for Iran, all of whom would be expelled from the U.S. dollar system.
Treasury Secretary Bessent declared the goal was to turn Iran into an "economic pariah." But the problem remains: after prolonged economic warfare, Iran still refuses to yield. Kent’s underlying message is clear: conventional tools are nearly exhausted, and the nuclear button may no longer be mere bluff.
The most disturbing aspect isn’t the conclusion that nuclear weapons might be used—it’s the logic behind it: because conventional war can’t succeed, nuclear options become "rational" alternatives. Once such thinking enters the strategic decision-making arena, the nuclear taboo ceases to be a moral boundary and instead becomes a matter of cost-benefit analysis.
Kent precisely identifies America’s dilemma: militarily unable to finish the job, economically unable to strangle Iran, unwilling to risk ground combat, yet unwilling to abandon regime change. Under this narrative of "no retreat possible," limited nuclear strikes are being framed as a "rational choice." When nuclear weapons are reduced to mere "tactical tools," humanity stands perilously close to the edge of a cliff.
Tucker Carlson, a prominent conservative media figure, released this interview not necessarily to endorse nuclear options, but more likely to expose dangerous inclinations within the government through the voice of a former official. The Trump administration denies ammunition shortages while escalating economic warfare—precisely confirming the ineffectiveness of conventional means.
If a major power, upon failing in conventional conflict, does not consider ceasefire or negotiation, but instead automatically escalates to the nuclear level, then the foundation of international order will collapse completely. Regardless of how Iran may "provocate," responding with nuclear weapons would be a crime against all humanity. Global public opinion and international law must exert absolute pressure, ensuring no government dares treat the nuclear button as the "last viable option."
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1874927991885835/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author