The Ultimate Trump Card

I take no pleasure in writing this, and you should take none in reading it

Demands for “unconditional surrender” from Iran by Donald Trump should spark new concern among anyone with an understanding of history. Unconditional Surrender is what Harry Truman demanded of Japan at the end of World War II, and Japan’s refusal to comply is what led the United States, in part, to drop the only two nuclear weapons ever used in war on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is possible, if not likely, that Donald Trump could initiate the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945. What was dismissed by some in 2021 as extremist fears must be taken with great seriousness given actions taken to date by this Administration to undermine the rule of law in the use of force, and the increasingly belligerent actions and statements by President Trump, and the Department of Defense under Secretary Pete Hegseth. It is not known if the reference to unconditional surrender was a deliberate choice by President Trump but three facts must be recognized as people consider what nuclear actions the weeks and months to come might bring.

1) This Administration apparently believes the President of the United States has the full legal authority, under Supreme Court judgments and the Office of Legal Counsel opinions, to use whatever means the President believes necessary – including presumably the use of nuclear weapons - under Article 2 of the Constitution. There is a strong debate about whether the current interpretation of the constitution and the law is supported by long-standing precedent and norms, but those have failed to constrain President Trump and his administration in the use of force against Venezuela against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific and again in the launching of its war in Iran.

2) The President has the physical capability and means to order the use of nuclear weapons at any time as part of a system that enables him to bypass the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff and the Secretary of Defense, and even the commander of US strategic command. There are no processes, nor is there a legal basis for officers in the nuclear chain of command to block or delay an order by the president to initiate the use of nuclear weapons against a legally vetted target.

3) It is increasingly clear that the United States and its allies in the Gulf may run short of missile defense interceptors in the coming weeks. Yet Iran has the ability to sustain its missile and unmanned aerial vehicle and drone attacks for many months. The result will be higher numbers of US casualties. Moreover, American interceptors are very expensive when compared with the cost of Iranian missiles and drones over time. The costs of pursuing the war, as well as the economic impacts of higher oil prices and regional destabilization will increasingly weigh on the Trump Administration.

For these and a host of other reasons, including Donald Trump’s own question about why the United States has all these nuclear weapons if they can’t be used, there needs to be serious concern that the President may soon reach for a nuclear weapon. That prospect must drive a broader and more deliberate discussion among senior leaders in the United States Military, serious officials within the Trump administration, and leading members of Congress in both parties. A failure to consider and take steps now to ensure any decision by the President to use force is done in conformity with the constitution, the principle of checks and balances, and the rule of law could lead to historic and disastrous results.