Trump may see nuking Iran as ‘safer' option: conservative magazine editor

Summary

Andrew Day, senior editor at The American Conservative, a conservative publication, is raising alarms about what he sees as a dangerous calculus in the Trump administration's approach to the Iran war: that the president might view nuclear weapons as a more politically palatable option than a ground invasion. In a series of posts on social media, Day argues that President Donald Trump could rationalize nuclear strikes on Iran as preferable to deploying American troops on the ground. "Considering only 7% of Americans support a ground invasion, and since all the ground force operation options sound like suicide missions, Trump might even see nuclear weapons as the safer political option," Day posted on X. Why It Matters The Trump administration has insisted repeatedly that Operation Epic Fury, which began February 28, targets only Iran's military infrastructure and nuclear program. The operation killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and has struck over 9,000 targets. But Trump has offered shifting justifications for the war's aims, from counterproliferation to regime change, leaving questions about what would constitute victory. What To Know With only a small fraction of Americans supporting a ground invasion, Day writes that Trump might see atomic weapons as the politically safer path out of a conflict that has already dragged on for a month with no clear exit strategy. "If Trump wanted to use nukes, who's there to tell him no? Susie Wiles would, but she's dealing with cancer. Stephen Miller might want to see a nuclear attack out of morbid curiosity. Hegseth seems to think Jesus has called on him to kill as many Iranians as possible," Day wrote. Day also suggests institutional restraints on the president have weakened considerably. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance present a political problem for Trump, Day says, but not necessarily a restraint. According to Day, they would be uncomfortable with nuclear strikes but face a collective action problem. "Rubio and Vance would be mortified, but they're dealing with a collective action problem, so each would prefer that the other be the one to put his foot down and alienate Trump. Dan Caine would highlight risks but present the option," Day wrote. Day also flags the influence of Miriam Adelson, the widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and a top Trump donor and confidant. The late Adelson had proposed dropping a nuclear weapon on Iran years ago. "Might his widow, Miriam Adelson, a top Trump whisperer, be pushing for the same?" Day asks. The war has already created political fractures within the Republican base. At CPAC last week, former congressman Matt Gaetz told the crowd that a ground invasion would make the United States "poorer and less safe," signaling dissent from some conservatives on the direction of the conflict. Day argues that Iran hawks display a dangerous ideological disposition. "Without cruelty there is no festival. One does detect in Iran hawks a kind of 'will to destruction' and hatred of boring, civilized diplomacy. By the end of this war, all the fear-mongering about Iran's nuclear program might seem to have been psychological projection," Day wrote, quoting Friedrich Nietzsche. The American Conservative has been among the most forceful conservative critics of the Iran operation. Day previously wrote that Trump had "raised-the-chances-of-nuclear-catastrophe levels" of mistakes with the war. "In the past he's asked why we have nuclear weapons but never use them. He does not seem to have internalized the 'nuclear taboo.' And he clearly feels stuck with no clue how to get out of the Iran mess except to OBLITERATE Iran," Day wrote. What People Are Saying U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday: "You can’t fight and win a war if you tell your adversary what you are willing to do or what you are not willing to do—to include boots on the ground," Hegseth told reporters. He said Iran currently believes the U.S. has "15 different ways" it could introduce ground forces, adding, "And guess what? There are." Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran’s Parliament, on Sunday in state media: "The enemy publicly sends messages of negotiation and dialogue, but secretly is planning a ground attack. The U.S. is unaware that our men are waiting for the arrival of American troops on the ground to set them on fire and punish their regional partners forever. Our firing continues. Our missiles are in place. Our determination and faith have increased." Senator James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, on NBC News’ Meet the Press on Sunday when asked about troops on the ground in Iran: "To be very clear on this, the worst thing that can happen is to be able to have this kind of conflict start and to not end it, to leave it undone. We've got to be able to finish this…If this is special forces to be able to carry out a specific operation—get in, get out—-that's very different than longstanding occupation." What Happens Next U.S. and Israeli airstrikes continue across Iran, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying U.S. war objectives would be achieved in "weeks, not months."