American journalist Tucker Carlson has warned that US President Donald Trump’s administration could launch a nuclear strike against Iran as early as 7 November, allegedly under pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Carlson claims that the potential target is Pickaxe Mountain in central Iran, where Tehran is suspected of conducting underground uranium enrichment activities.
He argues that conventional weapons cannot penetrate the facility and that Netanyahu is pushing Washington towards the nuclear option. According to Carlson, such an attack could have catastrophic regional consequences, destabilise global energy markets and set a dangerous precedent for the use of nuclear weapons.
In an interview with News.Az, American foreign policy expert and international relations analyst Wesley Alexander Hill said that Tucker Carlson is a journalist who benefits from adopting unconventional and provocative positions, which have become a defining feature of his public image.
Hill expressed serious doubts that the Trump administration
Hill expressed serious doubts that the Trump administration was considering the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, regardless of Israel’s wishes.
He emphasised that such a scenario was unrealistic and contradicted established US military doctrine and the political realities in Washington, DC.
“The pace of military operations has clearly declined, with intermittent ceasefires demonstrating the growing importance of diplomacy,” the expert noted.
According to Hill, Trump could soon face additional
According to Hill, Trump could soon face additional political constraints if Republicans lose control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, as most opinion polls suggest.
He therefore considers diplomatic engagement the most likely way forward.
“Any nuclear strike against Iran would have catastrophic consequences for the global economy and the United States’ position in the international system,” Hill warned.
He stressed that such an attack would lend legitimacy to a wide range of anti-American rhetoric and cause incalculable damage to America’s international prestige and standing.
The use of nuclear weapons against Iran would
“The use of nuclear weapons against Iran would establish a dangerous precedent regarding their acceptability,” the political scientist added.
According to Afshar Soleimani, a former Iranian diplomat and political analyst who served as Iran’s ambassador to Azerbaijan, the possibility of a US military strike against Iran has been discussed for some time, particularly attacks targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, including sites in the Pickaxe Mountain area, Parchin and elsewhere.
In an interview with News.Az, Soleimani noted that discussions had also included the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. However, he stressed that Tehran took these threats seriously, did not trust Washington or US President Donald Trump, and had been preparing for various potential scenarios.
Iranian officials consider the likelihood of a US
“Iranian officials consider the likelihood of a US nuclear strike relatively low but do not rule it out entirely, given the possibility of unexpected decisions by the Trump administration,” the former diplomat said.
He emphasised that Iran had reportedly retained certain military capabilities that had not yet been publicly demonstrated. Iranian officials had indicated that these capabilities could be deployed if the country came under attack.
Soleimani explained that although Iran had limited capabilities to strike the US mainland directly, reports suggested that some Iranian weapons could potentially reach parts of Europe.
A wider confrontation could also threaten countries
“A wider confrontation could also threaten countries in the Persian Gulf, particularly Israel, which could face significant retaliatory strikes,” Soleimani warned. He referred to statements by Iranian officials about the possibility of using various military capabilities, including tactical weapons, as well as claims concerning chemical weapons.
The former ambassador also pointed to Iran’s development of unmanned aerial vehicles capable of travelling approximately 2,000 kilometres, noting that such systems could carry different types of payloads. He mentioned speculation about their possible adaptation to carry chemical or other weapons.
“A major American attack would neither force Iran to surrender nor bring the confrontation to a quick conclusion,” Soleimani said.
Instead, he warned that military operations could expand
Instead, he warned that military operations could expand across the region, with increasingly powerful retaliatory strikes and the possibility of a prolonged conflict.
He also noted that reaching a decision on military action would be difficult for Washington because of disagreements within the US administration.
“Vice President JD Vance, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are reportedly opposed to such an attack, while some other officials, potentially including the defence secretary and secretary of state, may favour military action,” Soleimani said.
He suggested that these internal differences could complicate the decision-making process.
Turning to US domestic politics, Soleimani emphasised
Turning to US domestic politics, Soleimani emphasised that the congressional elections could significantly influence Trump’s ability to pursue military action against Iran.
He noted that Democrats were widely expected to perform strongly in the House of Representatives, while the balance of power in the Senate remained uncertain.
“Republicans could retain a narrow Senate majority of two to four seats, although a Democratic majority cannot be ruled out,” the analyst said.
Soleimani explained that Democratic control of the House
Soleimani explained that Democratic control of the House could considerably restrict Trump’s political options, potentially turning him into what American political terminology describes as a “lame-duck” president.
He stressed that Congress could obstruct presidential initiatives involving legislation, budget approvals and military funding, even if Republicans retained control of the Senate.
“Such political constraints could make it increasingly difficult for Trump to undertake major military operations against Iran,” the former diplomat suggested.
Addressing the consequences of a potential nuclear strike,
Addressing the consequences of a potential nuclear strike, Soleimani warned that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would mark the first such military action since the United States bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
He acknowledged that tactical nuclear weapons might have a more limited destructive capacity than strategic nuclear weapons but emphasised that their use could still produce devastating consequences.
“Radioactive contamination and other consequences of a nuclear attack could affect neighbouring countries, including states in the Persian Gulf,” Soleimani said.
He also warned that such an action could
He also warned that such an action could create a dangerous international precedent, potentially providing Russia with a justification for considering the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine.
The former ambassador further argued that a nuclear attack could push Iran towards developing its own nuclear arsenal, adding that Tehran might conclude that possessing nuclear weapons was essential to ensuring national security following such an attack.
“Under those circumstances, Iran could consider withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and pursuing the production of nuclear weapons,” Soleimani suggested.
He maintained that even a powerful US military
He maintained that even a powerful US military operation would be unlikely to eliminate Iran’s capabilities or achieve Washington’s long-term objectives.
“Although Iran could suffer substantial human and material losses, the conflict would not necessarily end, and the United States could face serious unintended consequences,” the analyst said.
Soleimani also criticised the Trump administration’s previous handling of relations with Tehran, arguing that Washington had missed several opportunities to resolve disputes through negotiations.
He recalled that Iran had been prepared
He recalled that Iran had been prepared to engage in diplomatic talks, but military strikes had occurred during the negotiation process.
The former diplomat acknowledged that Iran had suffered greater losses, including casualties and extensive material damage, but argued that Washington had also failed to achieve all its intended objectives.
He suggested that previous confrontations had raised questions about America’s regional influence and its ability to guarantee the security of Persian Gulf countries.
Some Gulf states have begun questioning whether Washington
“Some Gulf states have begun questioning whether Washington can adequately protect them in the event of another major regional conflict,” he said.
He emphasised that another military attack might delay Iran’s technological and military programmes but would not eliminate the scientific knowledge and expertise underlying them.
Soleimani pointed out that Iran had already developed capabilities in uranium enrichment and centrifuge production, missile manufacturing and unmanned aerial vehicle technology.
He argued that these capabilities continued to develop
He argued that these capabilities continued to develop and could not simply be erased through military strikes.
The former diplomat also noted that some Iranian nuclear and military facilities were located underground, making the complete destruction of the country’s capabilities particularly difficult.
For these reasons, Soleimani called for a more rational approach based on diplomacy rather than military escalation.
He recalled that an earlier nuclear agreement had
He recalled that an earlier nuclear agreement had been reached but that Washington had subsequently withdrawn from it, undermining opportunities to resolve outstanding issues through negotiations.
Looking ahead, Soleimani did not rule out the possibility of further US military action during the period between the congressional elections and the start of the new Congress.
However, he suggested that Trump could face considerably greater political and legislative obstacles once the new Congress began its work, particularly if Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives.
Several scenarios remain possible, but the likelihood
“Several scenarios remain possible, but the likelihood of a US nuclear strike against Iran remains very low, while the consequences of such an attack could extend far beyond Iran and destabilise the wider international security environment,” he concluded.
According to Israeli political scientist Yuri Bocharov, Tucker Carlson’s statements should primarily be viewed in the context of a large-scale information war currently unfolding not only between Israel and Iran, but also within Israel itself, the United States and the wider Middle East.
He noted that this had become “a genuine information war of everyone against everyone”, in which each side exploited fears of a major conflict to advance its own political interests.
Bocharov recalled that, ahead of the Israeli elections,
Bocharov recalled that, ahead of the Israeli elections, the opposition had warned almost daily that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was about to launch another war to cancel the elections and remain in power. However, the elections took place on 27 October.
“After the opposition failed to secure an independent majority, while its leaders continued to declare victory, a new scenario of intimidation emerged,” he pointed out, suggesting that Netanyahu was prepared to push US President Donald Trump not merely towards war with Iran but potentially towards a nuclear catastrophe to retain power.
The political scientist questioned this narrative, asking whether Netanyahu had actually lost power in the first place.
According to Bocharov, Netanyahu’s bloc had secured 53
According to Bocharov, Netanyahu’s bloc had secured 53 parliamentary seats, Jewish opposition parties had won 48, and Arab parties had obtained 19. Although Netanyahu currently lacked the majority required to form a government, his opponents faced the same situation.
“Netanyahu has a unified political bloc, recognised leadership and opportunities for coalition negotiations, while the opposition consists of several contenders for the prime minister’s position whose principal unifying slogan remains ‘Anyone but Bibi’,” he emphasised.
Bocharov acknowledged that Netanyahu was interested in weakening Iran and increasing American pressure on Tehran. However, he described attempts to present this as evidence of Netanyahu’s willingness to unleash a nuclear war to preserve his position as political speculation unsupported by convincing evidence.
He also stressed that Trump was not subordinate
He also stressed that Trump was not subordinate to Netanyahu, noting that Washington had its own strategic interests and that another Middle Eastern war could prove extremely costly for the United States.
According to the expert, every participant in the current information war was pursuing separate objectives. “The Israeli opposition seeks to demonise Netanyahu, while his supporters mobilise society around security threats. Tehran uses the possibility of an attack to consolidate its population, Arab states attempt to protect their own interests, and political forces within the United States remain divided between supporters and opponents of another military intervention,” he said.
Bocharov described Tucker Carlson as one of the active participants in this American debate, arguing that fear of war had itself become a political weapon. “Although no war has begun and no decision to launch one has been announced, information battles are already taking place with an intensity comparable to actual military operations,” he said.
The political scientist described discussions about the possible
The political scientist described discussions about the possible use of American nuclear weapons against Iran as “one of the most dangerous elements of the current information and psychological war”.
He emphasised that destroying an underground nuclear facility and eliminating a state’s ability to develop nuclear weapons were fundamentally different objectives.
“Factories and centrifuges can be destroyed, and even some specialists can be eliminated, but scientific knowledge and a state’s political determination cannot be eradicated,” Bocharov said.
He warned that a nuclear strike could produce
He warned that a nuclear strike could produce precisely the opposite of its intended result.
“While Iran might still be deterred from developing nuclear weapons through diplomatic, military and political means, such an attack could give the Iranian leadership a powerful argument that only possessing its own nuclear bomb could guarantee the country’s security,” he said.
Bocharov stressed that the greatest danger would extend beyond Iran itself. He explained that the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945 would effectively destroy one of the last remaining barriers to international security, establishing a precedent whose consequences could not be confined to a single region.
He also warned that such a scenario could become a strategic catastrophe for Israel.
Rather than eliminating the Iranian threat, Israel could
“Rather than eliminating the Iranian threat, Israel could face a large-scale regional war, further missile attacks, deteriorating relations with some international partners and increasing political isolation,” the expert said.
He added that neighbouring states, including Azerbaijan, which shares a direct border with Iran, would also face serious risks.
Returning to the issue of information warfare, Bocharov questioned who might benefit from convincing international public opinion that a nuclear strike was practically inevitable.
He suggested that some political forces could use
He suggested that some political forces could use this narrative to portray Netanyahu as a leader willing to risk a global catastrophe to preserve his power, thereby strengthening arguments for replacing him.
Others, he noted, could seek to intimidate Tehran ahead of negotiations while encouraging neighbouring countries to exert greater pressure on Iran.
A third group could attempt to pressure Trump and restrict his freedom of decision-making, while also influencing domestic American elections by portraying him as weak and accommodating towards what they describe as aggressive Israeli policies
The political scientist noted that diplomatic contacts
The political scientist noted that diplomatic contacts with Iran were continuing and that options for international mediation, including Russian participation, remained under discussion.
“Behind the public statements about an inevitable war, a different struggle continues largely out of public view, focused on determining the terms of future agreements,” he argued.
Bocharov expressed concern that the danger lay not only in the possibility of military confrontation but also in the growing tendency for information warfare to replace actual policymaking.
When all sides repeatedly convince one another
“When all sides repeatedly convince one another that catastrophe is inevitable, the risk increases that someone will eventually act according to their own propaganda narrative, driven by fear of failing to respond in time to a catastrophic scenario they themselves have imagined,” the expert said.
He emphasised that such a development would be far more dangerous than ordinary political speculation.
“While an information war may be initiated for political gain, it could ultimately escalate into a real war in which there would be no winners,” Bocharov concluded.
