Trump Considered Nuclear Option, Was Stopped by Top General: Ex-CIA Analyst

A former CIA analyst, Larry Johnson, has alleged that Donald Trump seriously explored the possibility of using nuclear weapons during tensions involving Iran.

Johnson said, "There have been denials. So, well, the issue. I was reporting what my source had said. And then when I did further checking, it wasn't so much a battle over the codes because the reality is the president holds the codes. Trump was seriously entertaining and asking about the use of a nuclear weapon. And General Caine, to his credit, said, absolutely not. Very firm. So there was the issue of nuclear use discussed."

This suggests that while no action was taken, the idea of nuclear use was actively discussed at high levels.

Who stopped the nuclear option and why?

According to Johnson, the proposal was firmly rejected by Dan Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

He explained, "It was shot down by General Caine, and that's the reason that Donald Trump later came out and admitted in the meeting, no, no, no, we're never going to use a nuke. Good. Got that off the table. So, no, I stand by it. It was, again, it wasn't my source, but it was someone I have confidence in. Later, we got confirmation that the issue of using a nuke had come up. That was discussed, and it was shot down by General Caine."

The intervention, he implied, helped de-escalate what could have been a dangerous path.

How does the US nuclear command chain work?

Johnson clarified that the US President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to order nuclear use, but the process involves multiple layers of military execution.

He said, "It's not so much a veto power as the role of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. By law, he is the president's senior military advisor. Now, the chain of command for using a nuke is if Trump ordered it, it would then go to the general that's in charge of what's called STRATCOM."

He added, "And he would go through the Secretary of Defense, or Secretary of War now, and then from Secretary of War to the general that commands the STRATCOM. The STRATCOM would be responsible for executing that. So the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not in that chain of command where he can overrule the president. But his advice, he's there to advise the president, and he said, no, bad idea, don't do it."

This means that while the chairman cannot block an order outright, his advice carries significant weight in decision-making.

Could military leaders have resisted such an order?

Johnson suggested that while formal veto power does not exist, resistance could come in other forms, including resignation.

He stated, "And, you know, the implication in that is if Trump actually tried to go forward or something like that, you can see possible resignations by Chairman Caine. You just say, no, this is outside the bounds. It's unacceptable. It's an actual military consideration. General Caine wasn't expressing a political view."

This underscores the ethical and professional constraints within military leadership when dealing with extreme decisions.

What are the global risks of nuclear escalation?

Johnson warned that using nuclear weapons could have catastrophic global consequences, potentially triggering wider conflicts.

He said, "I mean, just look at it from a practical standpoint. What are you going to accomplish? What is it going to achieve? And the answer is nothing except making the United States the ultimate pariah and putting us at risk of further nuclear engagements with Russia, China, North Korea, you know, other countries. So it's, you know, the world's already dangerous enough as it is. As you know, India and Pakistan, as neighbours, both have nukes. It gives you some incentive to say, let's be nice to one another."

His remarks highlight concerns about a cascading escalation involving multiple nuclear-armed nations.

What did Trump say about Iran’s nuclear proposal?

Separately, Trump addressed ongoing tensions with Iran and rejected its proposal on nuclear commitments.

He said, "I looked at the latest proposal from Iran, and if I don't like the first sentence, I just throw it away. It was an unacceptable sentence because they had fully agreed to no nuclear. If they have any nuclear of any form, I don't read the rest of it. Twenty years is enough, but the level of guarantee from them was not enough. In other words, it's got to be a real 20 years, not a fake one like the last one."

Trump also added, "We have to get everything, but we're not even talking about what I call the nuclear dust. I came up with a term which seems to have caught on. They said that they can't remove it because they don't have the technology to remove it. They don't have the type of tractors. They told me directly that the only one that can remove it is China or the US. We're the only ones with the equipment. They said it is a complete obliteration. With that being said, I want to get it. They agreed to it, but then they took it back. They'll agree to it eventually."

These remarks reflect ongoing tensions and strict US expectations regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.

(With inputs from ANI)