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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

This is a psy-op.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 18 hours ago

    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.)

    think-mark

  • source
  • [–] 70 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

    In a recent meeting on the subject, former president Barack Obama said he opposes the current Iran peace deal being drafted in Doha.

    Absolute piece of utter garbage

    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.

    Possible but I'm still doubtful

    Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other

    They don't like each other but I don't believe they'd actually start open nuclear war against each other

    as would North Korea against Seoul

    lol, nope

    The Iranians are famously frustrating to negotiate with under any circumstances

    I'm sorry, the IRANIANS are famously frustrating to negotiate with?! They've been entirely reasonable this whole time!

    since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family were killed in February

    *murdered

    After decades of isolation, even relatively moderate Iranian leaders seem confused by how decisions are made in the West.

    Any leader insistent on pushing for peace with America, even at this point, is entirely delusional

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

    Iran is confused about negotiations with America because the negotiations will happen, Iran states their terms, America agrees and then the press hears about the terms, then America will get mad at the press and denies the negotiations ever happened and then pull out of the deals

    Anyone would find that confusing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 30 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other

    They don't like each other but I don't believe they'd actually start open nuclear war against each other

    I keep thinking about that brief conflict last year. Two nuclear powers in direct conventional combat is something that I don't think we've seen before. (Thought I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong of course.) I'm not sure what's more worrying, that we may have come close to seeing nuclear war, or that nuclear weapons aren't the deterrents we've always assumed them to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago

    I think they can be a slight deterrent but if two or more nuclear powers really come to blows, I don't think they're gonna launch. Even if one side faces total capitulation, we'd be looking at a world destroying cataclysm.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 60 points 23 hours ago (1 child)

    "hundreds of millions of people who will be killed along with their children" Even now he has to assert that children are property not people.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

    This feels like the 6th time we've been "days away" from nuking Iran in the past year. Not to say it couldn't happen but I have my doubts.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 23 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

    It's also been an escalation trap where he's learning that nothing else works and he loses if he can't force a win by the time the new congress starts. I think this coming week is the most dangerous point of uncertainty since the early days of the war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    Tbf I feel like if he was planning to force a victory to get a better result in the next Congress, he'd have done it by now given voting is tomorrow and that's not counting early voters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 hours ago

    I don't mean he's trying to win in Iran to get a better election outcome. I mean that in January when the new house and senate take seat, if it's a democratic majority he's going to have a roadblock to fighting or expanding the war. An Israeli attack on Iran after January has less of a chance of American intervention to save them. I think he sees this lame duck period as the only shot he has for it to not be the most embarrassing military defeat in US history.

    That's not to say I have any personal faith in democrats. If anything they're more bloodthirsty. I just don't think they want this war this way right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 78 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Even the possibility of it is staggering. Death to the US. They are the liability the whole world can't afford.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 21 hours ago (1 child)

    Like most burger brains will be like oh whatever if tactical nukes are used but what they don't understand or care about if this opens a whole new front to warfare across the globe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 hours ago

    Part of the reason we canned the Davy Crocket tactical nuke was because it was still awful for the environment. If using those becomes accepted, it'd probably accelerate environmental collapse even more than emissions already are. Which is to say burger brains don't give a shit and will cheer for their use. doggirl-tears

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

    What if Tucker Carlson is actually planning to nuke Iran himself and this is step one of the frame job?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

    can't believe tucker got a nuke before iran

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

    He's taken over Shadow Moses Island.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 19 hours ago

    If Iran is just a mountain why hasn't the US drilled a bunch of little holes and filled them with water? Are they stupid?

  • source
  • [–] 44 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

    These wouldn't be large nuclear weapons, just small warheads within a heavy housing that is designed to smash into the ground as deeply as possible before detonating.

    You don't technically have to penetrate the bunker facility to do immense damage to it - if you vibrate a sealed concrete container full of humans, you can turn them into a smooth paste without having to destroy the container, like mixing a can of paint. To prevent this, Iran will have put the fragile enrichment equipment into rooms which are resting on dampening springs, like an earthquake resistant building. I don't think there's any one super-bomb the US can use - they'd just have to keep hitting it with small earth-penetrating nukes until the mountain progressively fractured and the facility progressively crumbled.

    Assuredly, no matter the result, when the world detects radiation emission, the US will say it's because they destroyed the target, not because of the bombs. They might even try to say they used a regular bomb and any nuclear emissions are purely from Iranian material.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 22 hours ago

    no matter the result, when the world detects radiation emission, the US will say it's because they destroyed the target, not because of the bombs. They might even try to say they used a regular bomb and any nuclear emissions are purely from Iranian material.

    I think you're right, but I also think even in that case there's a real chance Trump just goes off script and says he used nukes on TV

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 16 hours ago*

    Question, do these low yield EPWs (Earth Penetrating Warheads) even exist? As far as I know there are none in the US arsenal after the W86 got cancelled. The B61-11 EPW is a 400kt weapon. That's not a low yield EPW... The low yield W76-2 and low yield B61s are not EPWs either, and neither is the W80. Maybe Israel could have secret low yield EPWs. But publicly, the US arsenal doesn't have them. If they do, it's some classified programme.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 71 points 1 day ago

    Everyone who knew Iran is basically a mountain fortress of a nation could see this coming. They've also been sacking higher up generals recently. No one can tell me Trump and Kegseth wouldn't get off on using nukes.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 91 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (10 children)

    This isn't to say that Tucker is a reliable narrator. I'm posting it in addition to the statement by democratic senator Chris Murphy a couple days ago where he had reviewed Trump's plan and said it was "insane" and would "undermine the rule of law". My takeaway then was that it was going to be a limited land invasion or tactical nuke against some hardened target. Tucker's post isn't his usual conspiratorial or antisemitic shit, but the kind of sentiments I've heard echoed by more reasonable people like Mohammad Marandi in recent weeks. I think that's enough to add weight to Murphy's claim.

    I think it's the more plausible of the two potential escalations. The footage of a big explosion destroying a mountain is going to look cool to Trump and his base of rabid hogs. The footage of Iranian drones raining down on marines doing Paedophile Normandy, that would look really bad to him. Trump will at least be able to spin this into holding the world hostage and asserting presidential control over the military. I don't think it will work militarily and would almost certainly lead to some kind of regional radiological war against civilian targets within a week, but it's the only political option that isn't outright surrender or immediately losing the invasion fleet with the world watching.

    edit: Also I have nowhere else to put this but I googled Marandi to make sure I was spelling his name correctly and just learned this from his wikipedia page-

    Following the death of U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham in July 2026, Marandi said: "It's a shame. I wanted him to see oil prices on Monday before he went to hell."

    lol, lmao, heehaw like a donkey

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 25 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

    I think if Trump did use a small nuke it would also open up the possibility of Israel using a larger nuke right after once the seal has been broken, especially if the smaller US nuke didn’t end up meaningfully changing the paradigm. That would also be suicidal but I wouldn’t put it past Netanyahu

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago

    It would be funny if Israel laid out it's "I actually did have nuclear weapons" card for this, and it ended up not working and the facility remained intact anyway. I mean it would be horrific for the surrounding area too but uh, part of it would be funny.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 21 hours ago (1 child)

    Either it happens and he’s right or it doesn’t happen and he takes responsibility for avoiding it

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 23 hours ago*

    Right-wing grifter with a 20+ year record of lying as much as he wants to fuck green M&Ms:

  • source
  • [–] 52 points 1 day ago (25 children)

    Weirdly enough I believe Tucker Carlson here, but with this plan now exposed to the whole world, the surprise element is gone and the US will likely decide against nuking Iran.

    For now anyway.

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child 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
  • load more comments (16 replies)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 22 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

    "The missiles are flying. Hallelujah, Hallelujah!"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 44 points 1 day ago

    posadists gonna be eating good next year

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›