For the first time in decades, a U.S. president has directly implied willingness to use nuclear weapons against a claimed adversary. Former President Donald Trump has issued what amounts to a Ukraine-style ultimatum to Iran: abandon your nuclear program within two months or face severe consequences.
“We can’t let them have a nuclear weapon,” Trump stated recently. “I would rather have a peace deal than the other option but the other option will solve the problem.”
According to investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein, the seemingly vague threat carries specific and alarming implications. Behind closed doors, the Pentagon is actively preparing for a “major” regional war with Iran that explicitly includes nuclear options.
A retired senior military officer briefed on the planning told Klippenstein, “One might find it extraordinary to think that nuclear weapons are even considered, but we have entered a new era.”
The nuclear options are reportedly contained in Appendix 1 to Annex C of current Iran war plans. Central Command (CENTCOM), responsible for U.S. military operations in the Middle East, has been tasked with maintaining capabilities to back these threats.
The White House claims Trump and Putin agreed in a recent phone call that “Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel.” In Washington’s strategic calculus, an Iranian nuclear program is viewed as an existential threat to Israel, regardless of Iran’s actual intentions or capabilities and the fact that Israel has always played the role of aggressor.
What remains unaddressed in these discussions is the glaring double standard at play. The United States insists Iran must never possess nuclear weapons while maintaining the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal and being the only nation to have ever deployed nuclear weapons in warfare.
Iran has posed significantly less threat to global stability than the United States, which has engaged in numerous foreign interventions and regime change operations over the past several decades. Iran has not invaded another country in modern times.
Defense policy analysts note the American position has less to do with genuine security concerns and more with regional power dynamics. An Iran with nuclear capabilities would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East, potentially reducing U.S. influence and forcing more balanced diplomatic relations with regional actors, including Israel. The nuclear deterrent that Iran seeks would limit America’s ability to dictate terms in the region. It would require the U.S. to negotiate rather than threaten.
Perhaps most concerning is how defense contractors stand to benefit from continued tension. Major U.S. defense companies have seen stock prices rise following news of potential escalation with Iran. The defense industry historically profits from regional instability that justifies increased military spending and weapons sales.
According to Pentagon procurement documents examined by Klippenstein, nuclear planning against Iran has undergone several transformations since the Cold War era. The current iteration includes both “bottom-up” options, where CENTCOM commanders could request nuclear strikes, and “top-down” authorization directly from the president.
Particularly worrying is the deployment of low-yield nuclear warheads on Trident II submarine-launched missiles, completed in February 2020. These smaller nuclear weapons blur the line between conventional and nuclear warfare, potentially lowering the threshold for their use.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has continued many of the Trump-era policies regarding Iran, maintaining sanctions and reinforcing the U.S. commitment to preventing Iranian nuclear capabilities “using all elements of its national power.”
As tensions continue to rise, the question becomes not just whether Iran will develop nuclear weapons, but whether U.S. policy is genuinely serving global security interests or merely perpetuating a system that benefits defense contractors while risking regional stability.
The American public deserves a genuine debate about nuclear policy and double standards—one that acknowledges the real motives behind U.S. positions and considers the potentially catastrophic consequences of nuclear escalation.