An adage says economists have predicted twelve of the last five recessions, and something similar can be said about apocalyptic warnings. Nevertheless, false warnings of the apocalyptic do not delegitimize all warnings.
It was former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, hardly an isolationist, who said in 2003 that "it was luck that prevented nuclear war."
Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran. The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its…
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) November 2, 2026
If Carlson's detractors are correct, and the United States and Israel are not considering nuclear strikes against Iran, the White House should just say so. While President Donald Trump clarified two weeks ago that he "wouldn't use nuclear [weapons]," he has also threatened to eviscerate Iranian civilization, with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth mocking "Iranians that think they're gonna live." The administration, to put it mildly, sends mixed signals.
Regarding Pickaxe Mountain, the heavily fortified site Carlson claims will be targeted, Trump said on Saturday that "we still have to take care of [it]," adding "we can do that in ten minutes." It is unclear whether conventional weapons can destroy the mountain's 300-foot-deep complex.
תקראו את הדברים החשובים של יובל בלומברג:
— Benjamin Netanyahu - בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) October 25, 2026
מדינת ישראל נמצאת בסכנה קיומית אמיתית ומוחשית. אם האיראנים ישיגו גרעין, שום דבר כבר לא ישנה יותר. הכל כל כך טפל אל מול הסכנה הקיומית של איראן והציר השיעי.
הסערות המבוימות והמומצאות חדשות לבקרים נועדו להסיט את תשומת הלב מהדבר האחד שהוא… pic.twitter.com/v6L73s0bFO
The President and Secretary never apologized for their anti-human posturing; Levin and the Prime Minister still haven't clarified what they mean by "every bit as important" and "all of the required resources of the state." Carlson's warning, likely well-sourced given his proximity to key administration officials, best reflects the culmination of a months-long march toward nuclear conflict. If this is not the case, then the United States and Israeli governments can end the controversy today by issuing a joint statement denying any first-strike nuclear attack.
In lieu of that unlikely statement, there are two possible scenarios. First, the U.S. and Israel are not seriously considering preemptive nuclear strikes, but are preserving their respective leaders' negotiating position by maintaining the illusion of such a threat. This is fundamentally immoral — the offensive use of nuclear weapons guarantees unconscionable civilian casualties and permanent environmental disaster. Not to mention the second-order threats posed to American citizens as a result of their government's (third) use of atomic weapons. Nobody has the right to flirt with global annihilation, irrespective of their rationale for doing so.
Alternatively, if preemptive nuclear strikes are being considered, then the entire American leadership class must do everything in their power to stop it. "Everything" is vague and inevitably raises questions of legality; I ask only that we consider what, if any, higher laws we are subject to. Can the President massacre civilians in this life? Perhaps. But we all benefit from thinking about the next.
Of course I am not advocating for violence (I'll leave that to Trump and his allies), but our system provides mechanisms for removing unhinged leaders. Impeachment is unlikely, and so is the Cabinet's invocation of the 25th Amendment, but military leaders can still refuse the President's orders. Post-war liberalism is based on the idea that "just following orders" is an insufficient excuse. I wonder if Levin accepts that analogy.
The French philosopher René Girard, an eminent thinker on existential violence, advised people to attend church, even amid the omnipresent threat of nuclear conflict.
C.S. Lewis, in his essay On Living in an Atomic Age, struck a similar chord: "If we are going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb, when it comes, find us doing sensible and human things."
I am in no position to disagree with either of them. I only add Carlson, who wrote that, "One group that hasn't been consulted so far is the global population… Now would be the time for them to speak up." And if he is wrong, now would be the time for his detractors to speak up as well.
Jack Verrill is a Junior at the University of Michigan studying philosophy. Follow him on X @jack_verri11
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.
Source link
