Is a US nuclear strike on Iran possible and what will happen next with the war in the Middle East?

Statements about the possible use of nuclear weapons by the United States against Iran are an element of informational pressure and have no real basis. At the same time, the situation around Iran remains tense, and among the possible scenarios for the development of events, even a ground operation is not ruled out. Political scientist Ihor Reyterovych stated this in a comment to UNN.

Nuclear weapons will achieve nothing

Recently, the media has been actively discussing the possibility of the United States using nuclear weapons against Iran. However, according to the expert, such a scenario makes no practical sense.

He emphasizes that even from a military point of view, it will not yield results, and the political consequences will be catastrophic.

Trump, of course, will not use any nuclear weapons. Firstly, there is no point in doing so from a military point of view – it will achieve nothing and will not lead to radical changes. Secondly, the US has a system of checks and balances that does not allow such decisions to be made unilaterally, even despite it being a presidential republic. And most importantly, this is an event that could simply change the entire history of mankind, so such steps are not taken 

He adds that such statements should be viewed as part of a political game.

This is more about escalating and trying to raise the stakes as much as possible to force Iran to make concessions. Trump acts in his style – constantly setting deadlines, increasing pressure, and expecting the other side to break 

What conditions does Trump set for Iran?

According to the political scientist, the US has a clear set of demands for Iran, which can be considered a minimum program for ending the conflict. This includes not only military but also political and economic aspects.

For Trump, it is fundamentally important that the Iranian nuclear program effectively ceases to exist. This refers to the presence of materials that could potentially be used to create nuclear weapons – by various estimates, hundreds of kilograms. Either a strict international document must be signed, or these materials must be transferred under the control of the US or countries they trust 

In addition, the issue of security in the region is important.

The second point is the Strait of Hormuz, which must be unblocked. And another aspect is guarantees that Iran will not carry out aggressive actions against neighboring countries. This is the minimum that Trump expects 

According to him, achieving such agreements would allow the American side to declare victory.

Military success exists, but political results are lacking

Reyterovych emphasizes that from a military point of view, the US already has serious results in the confrontation with Iran. However, this is not enough to end the conflict.

From a military-technical point of view, this certainly cannot be called a defeat. A significant part of Iran's military potential was destroyed, several dozen key figures were eliminated, and serious blows were dealt to the infrastructure. That is, Trump can come out and say that the US won, and formally it will look convincing 

At the same time, according to the expert, without a political result, this does not work.

It is not enough to win militarily if political goals are not achieved. As Clausewitz said, war is the continuation of politics by other means. Here it is the opposite: politics must end the war. And if there are no decisions on the nuclear program or security, it is too early to talk about an end 

Is a protracted war possible and what trump cards does the US have?

The expert points out that Iran has significant military potential, which could prolong the conflict. In such a situation, the US may seek additional tools of pressure.

Iran has a large stock of missiles and drones, and if it does not make concessions, the war could drag on. Trump has options to accelerate this, but they are not simple and do not guarantee results 

One such option could be a strike on Iran's economic base.

For example, one could try to take control of key points through which the main oil exports pass. Iran receives up to 90% of its revenue through such facilities. If this channel is blocked, the economy will begin to decline very quickly, and then peace on US terms is possible 

Ground operation - high risks and heavy losses

However, according to Reyterovych, such a scenario involves serious risks. In particular, due to the unpredictability of hostilities and possible heavy losses.

The problem is that no one can guarantee the success of a ground operation. This is a key question for Trump, because the military does not give him clear answers 

At the same time, the expert does not rule out that such an option may still be implemented.

I assess the likelihood of a ground operation as quite high. Trump doesn't have many options. If he starts massively hitting infrastructure, it will already look like a war against the population, not against the regime. Plus, the Iranians can use civilians as human shields, which further complicates the situation 

He separately emphasized the factor of losses.

Currently, losses are relatively small. But if they increase many times over, it will become a serious problem for the American authorities. Because even if it's dozens or hundreds of people, that's a completely different political effect in the US 

The political scientist concludes that the nuclear scenario remains unlikely and is used as a tool of pressure. Instead, the real struggle unfolds around political agreements, and among the possible scenarios for the development of events are economic pressure and even a limited ground operation, which, however, carries significant risks for the United States.

Context

US leader Donald Trump issued a harsh threat to Iran, stating that "an entire civilization will perish tonight" as the deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz approaches.

Recall

Earlier, Trump threatened to destroy Iranian power plants and other civilian infrastructure, stating that the country would face dire consequences if it did not open the Strait of Hormuz by 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday. Trump had previously set several deadlines that were subsequently changed.

The President and the White House dismissed concerns that striking such infrastructure could be a war crime.