The 2024 Presidential election is not so far away for the American public to forget that Donald Trump campaigned enthusiastically as a Peace President and as a critic of ‘endless wars’ in favor of a sane, rational foreign policy of “no new wars,” a ‘one day’ end to Ukraine war as well as withdrawal on NATO – none of which have materialized.
Instead, Trump has flipped in pursuit of exactly the opposite with a military campaign that has bombed at least seven countries, continued escalation of the Ukraine war with American and EU support and an unprovoked attack on Iran bringing not only the US but the entire world to the brink of a potential ‘first strike’ with nuclear weapons.
As the war in Ukraine escalates with European-provided drones in attacks on Russia and its civilian population, former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene revealed that “They are discussing using nuclear weapons on Iran in strategy meetings.” Greene insists she is ‘not speculating. I know,” about the possibility of a ‘first strike’ on Iran.
With US missiles and drones in short supply, Greene cited the potential use of nuclear weapons, “emphasizing the catastrophic humanitarian and economic implications.”
Greene continued that
“Trump promised no more foreign wars, but may actually be the one who delivers a nuclear holocaust that would likely drag the entire world into a major conflict, economic depression, and mass human suffering we’ve never seen in our lifetime.”
Since Greene’s stunning announcement, media reports have confirmed that Defense Department Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby is drafting a new nuclear strategy including the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons that would expand the president’s nuclear response to “credible, rational nuclear options.”
It is also now known that, at one of the Pentagon’s meetings, some anonymous person wrote on a computer screen “hey, maybe we should use nuclear weapons in this war.” No one admits to knowing its author but the proposal warrants a serious investigation in order to be held legally responsible.
It might be argued that here is nothing credible or rational about providing a ‘first strike’ nuclear option to a President known for violent rhetoric which has gone beyond bluster. In an April 7 Truth Social Post Trump wrote that “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again….” as well as “Today Iran will be hit very hard! Under serious consideration for complete destruction and certain death…” in a March 7 Truth Social post.
.
Clearly, Trump was suggesting the use of tactical nuclear weapons as no conventional weapon could achieve the total level of destruction the President was endorsing.
What first caught my attention after those statements was that there was no public outcry. There were no media voices responding in horror but more especially, as far as we know, not one Member of Congress which have the Constitutional right to declare war, was sufficiently outraged to hold the President accountable or to suggest that the President of the United States was off base although within his ‘sole authority’ to initiate a nuclear response.
In addition, no outraged or frightened member of the Trump administration dared stand up to the President and resign in opposition to his irresponsible conduct although Joe Kent resigned his position weeks earlier citing Trump’s inappropriate acquiescence to Israel.
Further, on February 28, the President initiated an unprovoked war of aggression on Iran which constitutes a ‘war crime’ according to the Nuremberg trials. Again, there were few voices of opposition on either side of the Congressional Aisle.
Currently, the US has no limit on a ‘First Use’ Strike Option as President Trump who has on multiple times threatened to “obliterate”, “annihilate” the entire civilization of Iran implying the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
The unfortunate irony is the President does retain ‘sole authority’ to order use of the US nuclear arsenal and is not required to obtain approval from Congress or any other entity before issuing the Order.
In addition, Israel also has no ‘first use’ authorization as it has repeatedly over the course of the last 50 years repeatedly threatened the use of ‘offensive weapons.’
*****
During a recent interview with former Director of National Counterterrorism Center Joe Kent, former FOX Commentator Tucker Carlson unequivocally stated that President Donald Trump should be removed from office “immediately” if he is actively considering the ‘first use’ of nuclear weapons, arguing that such a move should represent an absolute “red line” for any President.
As Carlson explained,
nuclear war inevitably ends in destruction of all life on the planet and that voluntary offensive use of nuclear weapons is putting at risk every person on the planet. That person is a dangerous lunatic and anyone who suggests that is a criminal.
Carlson continued,
Why isn’t there an attempt to remove him from office, like, immediately?” he asked. “Anyone who would even tolerate that kind of talk from any of his subordinates or employees is by definition unfit.
In January 2025, “Restricting the First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2025” was introduced by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) with thirty five co sponsors. The Act was referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee but never received a Committee hearing as it received a 0% prognosis of ever being enacted.
S2296 “First Use Nuclear Strike Amendment” by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass) introduced in 2022 to the NDAA.
*****
Meanwhile, CIA Director John Ratcliffe was recently sent to Moscow on a secret overnight mission ostensibly to meet with his counterparts within Russian intelligence.
There has been no public hint about a message, attracting serious speculation although difficult to believe Ratcliffe, who remains out of his league with no experience interacting with high level diplomats like the Russians, is better known as Mossad’s Stenographer, was selected to conduct an ultra-secret mission.
Not unlike prepping for another visit from Trump’s Dynamic Duo of Witkoff – Kushner, those dreary ‘special envoys’ seeking some vague peace agreement who lack any professional diplomatic experience, skill or status.
Russians are not so credulous to believe that Ratcliffe arrived out of his league containing any special message about peace but may have come to enquire as to potential Russian strikes on NATO or opposition to Europe’s drone production. Yet frequently underrated, the Russians are not so gullible to willingly reveal any future Russian payback on UK drone facilities.
Currently, the Russians have a thin trust with the US since the Alaskan Summit as Lavrov believes that Trump made certain backchannel agreements to Putin and then failed to fulfill his word as US $ and weapons continued to flow into Ukraine.
Ratcliffe did not arrive in Moscow to issue ultimatums to the Russians; if so, the Russians would not have let such message remain in limbo or unanswered; for instance there are no ‘deals’ on the Donbass which will remain Russian in perpetuity.
Ratcliffe would not leave Moscow with any illusion that the Russians were willing to ‘compromise’ in what Russians consider an existential threat to their border and their sovereignty or to save Trump’s political electoral ass from the mid term elections.
Ratcliffe should have made the trip knowing he would receive a wake up call about US violations of international law while shrewd Putin Press staff Dmitry Peskov would end the meeting stressing “positive developments” with no hint of conjecture.