The dreaded 'N' word is back again as Trump runs out of Iran options

After more than a month of relative calm, the United States and Iran are back to trading attacks, which has once again led to speculation over the dreaded nuclear option.

The latest escalation began with a US strike on Iranian military assets on Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz and was followed by Iranian missile attacks targeting US-linked military facilities in Jordan and the UAE. The exchange has revived fears that a conflict which appeared to be shifting into an economic and diplomatic phase could be sliding back toward direct confrontation.

It has also brought back a debate that had largely remained on the fringes of public discussion in recent months -- whether Washington could eventually contemplate a nuclear option if conventional military and economic pressure fail to produce its desired outcome.


There is no evidence that the Trump administration is actively considering such a move. But a series of comments from figures once closely associated with Trump's political orbit have pushed the issue back into the spotlight at a moment when the conflict appears increasingly difficult to resolve. The latest are comments by Trump's former counter-terrorism advisor Joe Kent, who had resigned a few months ago over Trump's decision to strike Iran.

Also Read | Trump declares Iran ‘dead’ and a ‘Failed Nation’, claims inflation has hit 300%

A conflict stuck in a stalemate

The latest military exchange highlights the extent to which the war has become a contest of endurance rather than a march toward a decisive outcome.

According to US Central Command, American forces struck two Iranian rocket launchers on Larak Island after observing preparations to launch sea mines into the Strait of Hormuz. Iran responded by claiming attacks on facilities used by the US military in Jordan and the UAE. The strikes marked the first direct exchange between the two sides in more than a month.

The renewed violence comes despite Washington's recent effort to shift emphasis toward economic pressure. Trump has repeatedly argued that sanctions and financial isolation can force Tehran to change course. The administration has unveiled new sanctions packages and threatened countries that continue commercial ties with Iran. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently said Washington's goal is to make Iran an "economic outcast" and warned that entities facilitating Iranian financial activity could be cut off from the US dollar system.

Yet six months into the conflict, neither military force nor economic pressure has delivered a breakthrough. Iran continues to challenge shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, while Washington remains committed to keeping the vital energy corridor open. The result is a confrontation that increasingly resembles a stalemate.

Also Read | Trump says Kharg Island is being ‘blown to smithereens’ as US-Iran tensions flare

Joe Kent's warning

The latest round of nuclear speculation was triggered by remarks from Joe Kent, Trump's former counterterrorism adviser, during an interview with conservative commentator and podcaster Tucker Carlson.

Kent argued that the administration is running out of options if it remains committed to forcing Iran into what he described as a position of total surrender.

According to Kent, Washington has failed to achieve a series of objectives that have evolved over the course of the conflict despite employing military strikes, sanctions and diplomatic pressure. He suggested that the White House is now searching for a way out of a confrontation that has produced no decisive result.

In Kent's assessment, only two paths remain if Washington continues pursuing maximalist goals against Tehran. The first is a large-scale ground invasion designed to remove the Iranian leadership and impose a settlement by force. The second is the use of a tactical nuclear weapon against hardened underground facilities associated with Iran's nuclear programme.

Kent quickly dismissed the invasion option. Iran's size, population and geography would make such an operation extraordinarily costly and difficult. That, he argued, is what makes discussion of more extreme alternatives conceivable. He specifically raised the possibility of a limited nuclear strike against deeply buried uranium enrichment facilities located beneath mountainous terrain. "If you just play out the scenario for long enough, you arrive at weapons of mass destruction fairly quickly," Kent said during the interview.

His comments drew attention not because they revealed a government plan but because they articulated a concern shared by some analysts -- what happens if Washington's stated objectives remain unchanged while its conventional options become increasingly constrained?

Tucker Carlson raises the alarm

Carlson's reaction was equally striking. During the discussion, he argued that any president seriously considering the first use of nuclear weapons should be removed from office immediately.

The conservative commentator, once one of Trump's most influential media allies, said merely entertaining such a possibility should disqualify a president from serving. He questioned why impeachment would not be considered if a president were actively weighing a nuclear first strike. Carlson's comments reflected the growing divide within parts of the American right over foreign policy and the Iran conflict in particular.

To be sure, Carlson's criticism was directed at a hypothetical scenario. Trump has not publicly stated that he is considering nuclear use against Iran.

Marjorie Taylor Greene's explosive claim

The nuclear debate had already been stirred earlier this month by former Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene.

In a post on X, Greene claimed administration officials were discussing the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran during internal strategy meetings. "They are discussing using nuclear weapons on Iran in strategy meetings. Yes you read that correctly. It's real. I'm not speculating, I know," she wrote. Greene described the prospect as "pure evil" and warned that lowering the nuclear threshold could unleash a far wider catastrophe.

The claim generated much debate because it appeared to suggest discussions far beyond anything publicly acknowledged by the White House. However, Greene did not provide evidence for her assertion and no independent reporting has substantiated it. The White House has not confirmed that nuclear options are being actively considered and there is no public evidence that such a decision is under review.

Still, Greene's remarks resonated because they intersected with a real strategic dilemma confronting Washington. As the conflict drags on, questions continue to grow about whether conventional military power can permanently eliminate Iran's most heavily protected nuclear facilities.

The underground challenge

At the centre of that debate are Iran's deeply buried nuclear sites. American officials and experts have increasingly focused on facilities such as the underground complexes near Natanz, including the so-called Pickaxe Mountain site. Analysts believe some of these facilities are protected by extensive tunnel networks buried beneath layers of rock that may exceed the penetration capability of conventional bunker-buster bombs.

The issue is not whether the United States can strike such locations. It is whether conventional attacks can reliably destroy the infrastructure hidden deep underground. Some previous assessments involving other hardened facilities such as Fordow have raised similar questions, with analysts debating whether conventional strikes could permanently eliminate protected enrichment capabilities.

Those concerns explain why discussions about hypothetical nuclear options periodically emerge, even though there is no indication they are close to becoming policy.

Why the nuclear option will be worse

From a military perspective, a nuclear earth-penetrating weapon would offer greater destructive power against hardened underground targets than any conventional bomb currently in the US arsenal. But military effectiveness is only one part of the equation.

The political consequences would be enormous. The US has not used a nuclear weapon in combat since 1945. Any first use, even of a tactical weapon, would shatter a decades-old global taboo and trigger severe diplomatic fallout. It could also encourage nuclear proliferation elsewhere as countries conclude that possessing their own deterrent is the only reliable protection.

The military aftermath would be equally uncertain. Iran could retaliate directly or through regional partners. The conflict could expand well beyond its current boundaries and draw in additional actors across the Middle East. It can also embolden Russia to use tactical nukes on Ukraine.

More debate than policy so far

For now, the return of the "N" word says more about the frustrations of the conflict than about imminent US policy.

There is no public evidence that Washington is preparing a nuclear strike against Iran. Both Kent's remarks and Greene's claims remain speculative. But their comments have drawn attention because they highlight the narrowing range of attractive options available to the United States. A ground invasion appears prohibitively costly. Economic pressure has yet to force a strategic shift in Tehran. Conventional military action can impose damage but may not fully eliminate the most hardened elements of Iran's nuclear programme.