spoilerUnder 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.

6:47 PM · Nov 1, 2026 · 43.5M Views

https://archive.is/nycv6

Tweet with full text in spoilers
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 51 points 1 day ago (16 children)

could just be that he values the international right wing movement more than the aroma of burning flesh. Establishing by example the political implications that right wing extremism cause nuclear war automatically sheds remaining moderates on a global scale. Doubly so for Europe who will rightfully perceive this as granting Russia license to use various forms of smaller scale tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine (which only matters to Europeans because it's near them).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 day ago (13 children)

    Yes, always look on the bright side of nuclear war by the prospect of moderates finally being forced to oppose fascism lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    I think the response from the "rules based international order" will be a collective shrug and a warning for nuclear armed States they don't like to calm down and don't do anything rash.

    In the US? "I don't like nukes but Iran was a bad dude full of bad boys... What else could we do?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    While people might be horrified today, in a handful of decades we'll hear about how it was 'morally grey but necessary'; we'll still hear about it today, but it'll be a lot more popular with libs in a handful of decades

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 20 hours ago (1 child)

    If history is any guide:

    "Actually nuking Iran saved lives because we otherwise we would have HAD TO send hundreds of thousands of ground troops into Iran"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 hours ago

    "the Iranian civilians were brainwashed by their theocracy, they all would have laid down their lives for the Ayatollah, they have a warrior culture that emphasizes death over dishonor, they would have kept on fighting even without food"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Always look on the bright side of nuclear war
    Always look on the bright side of life

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • Yes, always look on the bright side of nuclear war by the prospect of moderates finally being forced to oppose fascism lol

    Tempered by what I've seen, my first instinct is to disagree with you on this point because a... funnier? possibility exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    rightfully perceive this as granting Russia license to use various forms of smaller scale tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine

    One would think the Europeans would be raising a stink if there was credibility to this rumor but nothing makes sense anymore so…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago

    One would think the Europeans would be raising a stink if there was credibility to this rumor but nothing makes sense anymore so…

    Back when Biden was still president, I was telling the lib I know that if any country was likely to use nukes, it would be America and against Iran, and it's because no one likes Iran; then a while later when Israel was trading missiles with Iran, I remember an Israeli who was crying about Iran striking them and responding to the journalist who asked 'but didn't Israel start it?' with 'No we didn't start it, no one likes Iran anyway!'

    I still hold that if any country was likely to use nukes, it would be America, and against Iran, because the 'international community' will let them with just a perfunctory finger wag and a shaking of the head to denote disapproval

  • source
  • parent