Trump Threatens Nuclear Attack?
Greene isn't credible. But she isn't the first—and Trump already denied it once.
Cliff’s Note:
Marjorie Taylor Greene says Trump’s people are sitting in meetings discussing using nuclear weapons on Iran.
“Yes you read that correctly. It’s real. I’m not speculating, I know.”
Greene lies for a living. Believe none of it.
Except the New York Times reported the same discussions in April, and Trump went out and denied it on the record on April 23.
You don’t deny a thing nobody said.
David Shuster’s piece is up. The first half is free. The part about what happens when Tehran can’t tell whether he’s bluffing is not.
—Cliff
by David Shuster
There is something particularly insane these days about Donald Trump’s approach toward statesmanship. On top of having the biggest microphone in the world and possessing the loudest and most obnoxious voice, Trump is now promoting the U.S. nuclear arsenal and mistaking intimidation for strategy.
Alarm bells are ringing not just because Trump has been waging war against Iran with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. According to former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Trump has discussed with other administration officials the possibility of using nuclear weapons against Iran.
Greene is not exactly the most rational or credible or source on the U.S. political scene. So anything she says or claims deserves skepticism. But several news outlets reported similar Trump discussions in May, prompting Trump to issue a public denial. Three months later, with Iran as defiant as ever, Trump has reportedly circled back to talking about nuclear weapons and seems willing to have the Iranian regime think he is crazy enough to actually consider using such weapons. And that begs the question. Why is a U.S. President allowing anybody in Iran or elsewhere to wonder whether Trump’s negotiating repertoire includes nuclear attack?
Again, perhaps the whole thing is merely psychological warfare. Maybe Trump thinks that he can frighten Tehran, rattle the regime’s cages, and make the leadership believe he is so reckless and crazy that Iran should agree to open the Strait of Hormuz with no tolls and end the global energy shock before Trump considers an atomic shock.
Still, even the irrational actor strategy Trump may be floating is a grotesquely bad idea. Nuclear weapons are not ordinary diplomatic tools. They are not the verbal equivalent of “very,” “tremendous,” or “the biggest.” They are instruments capable of killing millions of civilians in a flash, contaminating territory, provoking retaliation and transforming a conventional war into World War Three.
Also, the threat could fail in several ways. The enemy could call the bluff. The enemy can misunderstand it. An ally could misunderstand it. A subordinate could misunderstand it. A radar operator could misunderstand something on a screen. A military commander could conclude that the president has crossed a threshold that everyone else assumed Trump was merely pretending to approach.
This is why nuclear deterrence has always depended upon something Trump seems to lack: seriousness. The problem is not just that Trump says outrageous things. Outrage is his native language. The problem is that he has attached outrageous language to actual military power.
Here’s the part that should keep you up at night.
It doesn’t matter whether Trump is bluffing. It matters whether Tehran can tell.
The rest of David Shuster’s piece is for paid subscribers—including why a nuclear threat meant to stop proliferation is the best argument for it anyone has made in years.
