Massive Floods Add to the Misery of Palestinians in Gaza

Crescent International

Gaza's flooded tents add to the misery of Palestinians. Lack of food, water and medicines have already caused havoc among the population of the tiny enclave. Zionist Israel refuses to allow much-needed supplies inculding fuel and equipment to rebuild their bombed out homes. The zionist plan is clear: kill as many Palestinians as possible and ethnically cleanse the rest from Gaza (Image: ChatGPT).

As if the ongoing zionist-perpetrated genocide in Gaza is not bad enough, more than 100,000 Palestinians have been afflicted by dire humanitarian conditions following massive floods in the tiny enclave.

Winter storms continue to cause havoc, flooding tents across Gaza.

The frequency of storms and flooding have led some observers to speculate that Israel may be involved in cloud seeding.

The only refuge for the Palestinians—the leaky tents—are turning into death traps and disease-breeding grounds.

Oxfam, one of the few charities working on the ground, has warned that displaced Palestinians have nowhere to go.

The zionist war criminals have bottled up the nearly 2.1 million Palestinians into 35% of the tiny Gaza Strip.

It was already a very congested place, measuring 10 miles at its widest and 25 miles long, for the 2.2 million Palestinians.

If previously they lived in a 250 sq miles of concentration camp, they are now squeezed into 87.5 sq miles.

There is no proper shelter or protection.

Almost every structure in Gaza has been destroyed.

The few partially standing buildings, with their concrete slabs hanging precariously, are on the verge of collapse.

On November 8, a sand embankment in central Gaza collapsed.

It buried the tents in tons of sand where the Palestinians were taking shelter.

Five Palestinians were crushed to death including four children.

It is not difficult to imagine the trauma the Palestinians face.

They were forced to abandon their homes because the zionists bombed and destroyed them.

For more than three years, they have faced the zionists’ relentless bombing and destruction of the tiny enclave.

Oxfam’s representative in Gaza, Wassem Mushtaha, urged governments to insist that Israel allow unimpeded access to recovery and repair materials.

Unfortunately, despite a ceasefire that supposedly went into effect in October 2025, the zionist war criminals have continued to bomb and kill Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

At least 1,613 Palestinians have been killed since then, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.

The tight siege imposed by the zionists is starving the already traumatised people of Gaza that have so far survived the genocide.

The most severely affected are infants and children.

There is urgent need for aid such as food, water and medicines.

Supplies, including spare parts, engine oil, pipes, and heavy machinery need to be allowed into Gaza.

The zionist plan is clear: they want to make life so miserable for the Palestinians that they would be forced to leave.

The incessant bombing of Gaza is meant to kill as many Palestinians as possible and drive the rest out.

The illegal zionist squatters are involved in a similar campaign of ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.

Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza has resulted in the near collapse of all functioning systems in the tiny enclave.

The Arabian and western regimes are complicit in the genocide of the Palestinians.

ethnic cleansing of GazaGaza floodszionist war crimes

The Will to Live: When Resistance Becomes a Culture

By Mohamad Hammoud

A Market Against Destruction

In Lebanon, where repeated wars have uprooted families and devastated livelihoods, a bottle of olive oil or a jar of honey can signify more than commerce. At Beirut’s Souk Ardi exhibition, farmers, artisans, and small producers brought the fruits of their labor into a space once damaged by war. Their presence reflects a culture of Resistance that extends beyond armed confrontation into the ordinary acts of cultivating land, preserving traditions, and rebuilding lives.

Organized by the Jihad al-Binaa Development Association, the exhibition opened on October 29 at the Sayyid al-Shuhada Complex in Beirut’s southern suburbs under the slogan “I Remain on My Land.” The complex had been damaged during the war and subsequently rebuilt. Choosing this location was itself symbolic: a place associated with destruction became a marketplace, illustrating how communities reclaim damaged spaces for work, exchange, and collective life.

The Land as Livelihood and Identity

Olive oil, thyme, honey, preserves, dried foods, and handmade crafts filled the stalls. Yet the significance of these products lies in the people and places behind them. A November 1 ZNN report described exhibitors arriving from the South, the Beqaa, Hermel, Keserwan, Mount Lebanon, and Beirut. Different in their circumstances, they shared a determination to keep producing rather than allow hardship to sever their connection with their work and communities.

For farmers in southern border villages, that determination carries particular weight. Damaged fields, displacement, disrupted roads, and insecurity make even a routine harvest uncertain. Safir al-Shamal reported on October 28 that exhibition organizers highlighted participation from border communities despite war-related difficulties. Bringing agricultural products to Beirut under such conditions turns a commercial journey into a visible assertion that rural livelihoods have not disappeared.

But steadfastness is more than an emotional attachment to the soil. Olive trees require care, crops require markets, and households require income. Without these foundations, remaining on ancestral land becomes increasingly difficult. The farmer who cultivates again is therefore preserving both a livelihood and the possibility that the next generation can remain connected to its village.

Resistance Beyond the Battlefield

Souk Ardi reveals how Resistance becomes embedded in the everyday culture of a community. The farmer who replants, the craftswoman who resumes production, the merchant who creates a market for village goods, and the builder who repairs a damaged home each contributes to a collective determination to endure. Teachers keeping schools open and medical workers caring for patients reinforce that same spirit, demonstrating how Resistance finds expression across different walks of life.

In communities repeatedly exposed to war, these efforts form part of a shared culture of steadfastness, where defending the land is inseparable from sustaining life upon it. Souk Ardi brings that culture into view, connecting agricultural production, traditional craftsmanship, and economic activity with a determination to preserve identity, dignity, and continuity across generations.

That connection is reflected in the organizers’ public message. According to the Association for Municipal Action, Hezbollah official Sheikh Ali Damoush used the opening to call for government support for farmers, manufacturers, and craftspeople, including compensation for war losses. His appeal underscored the importance of strengthening local production and providing the resources necessary for communities to rebuild and expand their economic activities.

A November 2 Al-Binaa report described producers, including women selling homemade foods and crafts, whose participation linked family income with dignity and belonging. Their work illustrates how the culture of Resistance can be expressed through productive labor, transforming the determination to survive into practical contributions to community life.

The Will to Live

The resilience displayed at Souk Ardi also highlights the importance of supporting communities determined to remain on their land. Agricultural assistance, reconstruction, accessible markets, and functioning infrastructure strengthen the foundations of that determination. Together, community initiatives and institutional support can help transform steadfastness into sustainable livelihoods and opportunities for future generations.

Souk Ardi’s deeper significance lies in this convergence of determination and everyday labor. Its stalls represent the capacity of people to sustain life after destruction. The farmer, seller, artisan, and customer each plays a different role, yet together they preserve the social and economic ties that keep communities connected to their land and heritage.

Here, Resistance is not merely a response to war. It is also expressed through the insistence that land will be cultivated, skills passed down, markets reopened, and ordinary life continued.

Vietnamese ambassador visits Imam Khomeini International University, meets with intl. students

TEHRAN- On November 8, 2026, the Vietnamese Ambassador to Iran, Nguyen Luong Ngoc, visited and held working sessions at Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU) in Qazvin Province and at its Persian Language Training Center for Foreign Nationals, with a view to promoting educational cooperation, scientific research, and cultural exchange between the two countries.

1. Working session with Imam Khomeini International University

IKIU is a public multidisciplinary university. It was established in 1983 under its original name, Quds International University, and has operated under its current name since 1991. The university has around 10,000 students, nearly 300 faculty members, and seven faculties: Engineering and Technology; Basic Sciences; Literature and Humanities; Social Sciences; Architecture and Urban Planning; Agriculture and Natural Resources; and Islamic Sciences and Research.

In the 2026 Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings, IKIU is placed in the 1,001–1,200 band globally, while its Mechanical Engineering program is ranked in the 201–300 band worldwide by the 2026 ShanghaiRanking. According to the EduRank database (March 2026), the university has 7,224 scientific publications and 107,904 citations. IKIU publishes 21 research journals, including three English-language and 18 Persian-language journals.

The university has strengths in mechanical engineering, technology, civil engineering, water resources management, and agriculture, and maintains laboratory facilities for applied research. IKIU is also home to the Future Studies Research Center, which conducts forecasting research, develops development scenarios, and addresses long-term issues.

At the working session, Ambassador Nguyen Luong Ngoc proposed connecting IKIU with Hanoi University and with Vietnamese universities specializing in technical and agricultural fields. He emphasized priority for student and faculty exchanges, scholarships, and joint research in engineering, technology, water resources, and agriculture, in line with each side’s strengths.

2. Working session with the Persian Language Training Center and meeting with international students

IKIU’s Persian Language Training Center has more than 30 years of experience teaching Persian to foreign nationals. At the time of the visit, it was hosting about 200 students from 23 countries. According to IKIU’s leadership, the Center was ranked first in Iran in 2026 for Persian-language training for foreign nationals. Its strengths include teaching from beginner to advanced levels; providing preparatory Persian courses for international students before they begin their specialized studies; integrating language instruction with Iranian culture; and offering online and short-term courses.

The Ambassador discussed possible cooperation in Persian-language training for Vietnamese students, faculty development, textbook support, short-term courses, and access to scholarships. He also spoke with international students at the Center, introducing Vietnam’s land, people, culture, development achievements, and Vietnam–Iran relations, thereby helping to promote Vietnam’s image among international friends.

It should be mentioned that the Future Studies Research Center, established in 2011, is a research unit of IKIU focusing on future-studies methodologies, forecasting, and long-term development scenario-building. IKIU also offers postgraduate training in Future Studies.

Tags

• Iran-Vietnam ties
• Vietnamese Ambassador to Iran Nguyen Luong Ngoc
• Qazvin Province

Iranian, Iraqi universities to expand cooperation through joint AI degree

TEHRAN – Amirkabir University of Technology and Iraq’s Najaf Al-Ashraf Islamic University have signed an implementation agreement to launch a joint master's degree program in computer engineering, specializing in artificial intelligence, as part of efforts to expand scientific and academic cooperation between the two countries.

The agreement was signed during a visit by a delegation from Najaf Al-Ashraf Islamic University to Amirkabir University of Technology, Mehr News Agency reported on Monday.

The signing ceremony took place at a meeting attended by the presidents of both universities, following the Iraqi delegation’s tour of Amirkabir’s science and technology park and laboratories at its faculties of biomedical engineering, mechanical engineering, and civil and environmental engineering.

Headed by Ammar Abdul Amir Al-Salami, president of Najaf Al-Ashraf Islamic University, the delegation also visited Amirkabir’s science and technology park, where its members became acquainted with the achievements and technological products developed by Iranian knowledge-based companies.

At the concluding meeting, Abbas Soroush, president of Amirkabir University of Technology, and Al-Salami signed the implementation agreement for the joint master's program in computer engineering with a specialization in artificial intelligence.

Expressing hope for the successful implementation of the initiative, Soroush emphasized the need to expand academic ties between the two universities and move toward conducting joint research projects.

He noted that Iran and Iraq face a number of shared issues and challenges whose solutions require research-based approaches, adding that cooperation with Najaf Al-Ashraf Islamic University would bring both scientific and broader benefits to Amirkabir University.

Al-Salami, for his part, highlighted the significance of the agreement, describing it as the first joint master's-level academic program of its kind between two universities in Iraq. He said the initiative could serve as a model for similar partnerships involving other Iraqi universities.

The agreement marks a new step toward strengthening academic exchanges and expanding cooperation in advanced fields of technology, particularly artificial intelligence, while creating opportunities for joint education and research between Iranian and Iraqi higher education institutions.

On August 6, Iraqi officials in a meeting with Minister of Science, Research and Technology, Hossein Simaei-Sarraf, called for expanding academic, scientific, and technological cooperation with Iran.

The science minister met Iraq’s Deputy Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Haider Abd-Dahd Al-Rubaie, Iraq’s Minister of Health, Abdul-Hussein al-Mousawi, and Acting Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Abdul Hussein Al-Mussawi, in Baghdad, IRNA reported.

During the meeting, the two sides underscored the need to expedite the implementation of the previously signed memoranda of understanding (MOUs).

Sharing Iran’s expertise in higher education development to achieve quantitative and qualitative goals, addressing the needs of Iraq’s substantial youth population, as well as attracting genius Iraqi students, and enhancing research collaborations were among the key focuses of the talks.

Simaei-Sarraf also held a meeting with Iraq’s National Wisdom Movement leader Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim.

Underlining the extensive scientific and academic capacities of Iran and Iraq, both parties exchanged views on strategies for promoting scientific cooperation, expanding joint research collaborations, and developing academic interactions between the higher education institutions of the two countries.

In April, Simaei-Sarraf and Al-Aboudi underlined the need to boost scientific and technological cooperation between the two countries.

The officials also discussed ways to develop collaborations on artificial intelligence (AI) utilizing the capacities of the two nations, IRNA reported.

During a meeting held in Tehran on April 18, Al-Aboudi announced that the establishment of a branch of Tehran University of Medical Sciences in Iraq has been put on the agenda.
 
For his part, Simaei-Sarraf voiced Iran’s readiness to share the country’s scientific, research, and educational achievements with Iraq to help enhance bilateral ties.

The official said that Iranian and Iraqi students have conducted a total of 350 joint research projects so far, which needs to be improved considering the available capacities.

Referring to an upcoming Iran-Iraq science week, which is scheduled to be held in Isfahan and Fars provinces, Simaei-Sarraf said the event was delayed because of the [US-Israeli imposed] war, but it will be held at the earliest convenience.

As the two officials agreed, AI and smart education will be among the topics to be discussed during the Iran-Iraq science week. The event is expected to lay the basis for holding a joint conference on AI in the near future.

On October 18, Iran’s scientific counselor in Iraq, Mohammad-Javad Najafi, and Iraqi Deputy Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Haider Abd Dahed, discussed ways to strengthen academic cooperation between universities in the two countries, with a focus on problem-solving approaches and addressing domestic and regional needs.

Collaboration on problem-oriented research, the provision of scholarships, the facilitation of educational issues for students, and preparation for the ‘Third Iran-Iraq Science Week’ were the key topics discussed during the meeting, IRNA reported.

The officials also discussed conducting collaborative research projects, supervising joint dissertations for postgraduate degrees, and publishing joint scientific articles in globally reputable magazines.

Addressing the challenges and educational problems faced by the students in reciprocal countries was the other issue raised by the two sides.

Tags

• Iran
• Iraq
• artificial intelligence

Iran’s Qalibaf: Hormuz’s Pre-War Status Is Gone for Good

By AI Ahed Staff, Agencies

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf announced that Tehran has submitted its latest response to the United States and is now awaiting Washington's reply to the Iranian proposal.

In this regard, Qalibaf stressed that resuming negotiations and reopening the Strait of Hormuz require the implementation of Iran's seven conditions, which he described as essential confidence-building measures for launching talks.

On the issue of maritime navigation, Qalibaf emphasized that the Strait of Hormuz will never return to its pre-war conditions, revealing that Iran and Oman have reached an understanding on a mechanism for navigation through the strategic waterway.

He also rejected any US role in determining passage arrangements, arguing that Washington, located thousands of kilometers away, has no right to dictate how the strait should operate.

Turning to the prospects of negotiations, Qalibaf said Washington and Tehran face two options: war or an agreement, adding that Iran is prepared for either scenario.

He further warned that if US President Donald Trump launches another attack against Iran, it will fail again and could expose him to accountability before Congress.

At the same time, Qalibaf stressed that Tehran has no trust in Washington, slamming it for prioritizing "'Israel' First" over "America First." He identified excessive US demands and ambitions as major obstacles to reaching an agreement.

Regarding diplomatic efforts, Qalibaf confirmed that Qatar and Pakistan are the official mediators between Iran and the United States, while Russia and China are also working to reduce tensions.

He further noted that Iran's six-member negotiating team remains unchanged under his leadership. Under the guidance of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, he said, Tehran is seeking to end the current state of neither war nor peace, while the decision to continue or halt negotiations rests with Washington.

Turning to regional developments, Qalibaf stressed that Iran and Lebanon stand on the same front, declaring that any Islamic country subjected to "Israeli" aggression would receive a collective response.

In this context, he said the Islamabad memorandum of understanding included Trump's commitment to halt attacks on Lebanon and recognize the Lebanese state's sovereignty over all its territory.

Concluding his remarks, Qalibaf stated that Iran does not distinguish between the United States and the Zionist entity, describing them as belonging to the same front, while Iran and the Resistance Front stand together on the opposing side.

The Clash of the Ballots: America First or “Israel” First?

By Fatima Haydar

The question surrounding Washington’s war on Iran has been there from the very beginning: whose interests is US foreign policy really serving, and how much are ordinary Americans expected to pay for it?

For months, the Trump administration has defended its military campaign against Iran by pointing to US national security, regional stability and the need to prevent Tehran from expanding its military capabilities. But the consequences of the war did not stay on the battlefield. Rising energy prices, growing pressure on household budgets and deepening political divisions brought the conflict straight into American homes.

On November 3, that frustration was reflected at the ballot box. Democrats won majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, dealing Republicans a major setback and leaving Trump facing a much tougher political landscape for the rest of his presidency.

The results cannot be explained by one issue alone. Inflation, the cost of living, tariffs and dissatisfaction with the country’s direction all played a role. But the war on Iran became another burden for an administration that had promised to put American interests first. It also brought an uncomfortable question back to the center of US politics: what does “America First” mean when a war overseas starts costing Americans at home? And where does support for “Israel” fit into that promise?

When the United States joined “Israel” in launching attacks on Iran in February 2026, the Trump administration presented the campaign as necessary for US security. But its economic consequences soon reached far beyond the region. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the national average price of gasoline rose above $4 a gallon as the conflict disrupted energy supplies.

For families already struggling with inflation, Trump’s tariffs and rising living costs, the war became much less distant. Its consequences could be felt at the gas pump, in electricity bills and in grocery stores. The financial cost of the campaign added to those concerns.

According to an Associated Press report published ahead of the elections, a Pentagon estimate put the cost of the war at $47.1 billion as of October 16, including operational expenses, replacement munitions and equipment losses, but excluding some damage to US bases. The administration was also seeking additional funding.

At a time when Americans were struggling with the cost of basic services, the scale of military spending inevitably raised questions about Washington’s priorities. How much more would the campaign cost, and why should its demands take precedence over problems facing people at home?

For Trump, this is where the war became a political liability. He had returned to office promising to focus on domestic concerns and avoid dragging the United States into another prolonged overseas conflict. Yet the campaign against Iran placed those promises under scrutiny, particularly among voters who expected a different approach to US foreign policy.

Trump himself acknowledged that Iran had contributed to Republican losses, describing it as “a piece of it,” while insisting that he did not regret launching the campaign. The election was not a referendum on Iran alone, but the connection between Washington’s decisions abroad and the problems Americans face at home had become increasingly difficult to ignore.

The debate, however, goes beyond the cost of the war. It also raises a more sensitive question in US politics: are Washington’s long-standing commitments to “Israel” serving American interests, and how far is the United States willing to go to maintain them?

For decades, support for “Israel” has been a central part of US foreign policy, backed by military cooperation, political commitments and strategic considerations. But public attitudes are changing, and the war on Iran has brought renewed attention to the extent of Washington’s support.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs’ 2026 survey found that 56% of Americans favored either reducing or ending US military aid to “Israel”. Of those, 21% supported reducing assistance, while 35% favored ending it altogether. The survey also found that 68% believed the war with Iran was not worth fighting, compared with 31% who considered it worth the costs.

These figures do not mean that American voters have rejected the US relationship with “Israel”. They do, however, point to growing disagreement over the scale of Washington’s military commitments and whether those commitments reflect the interests of the American public.

For critics, the war has once again raised concerns that US security priorities are becoming too closely tied to “Israel’s” regional calculations, potentially drawing Washington into confrontations with consequences far beyond its borders. Supporters continue to describe the relationship as a strategic partnership that strengthens US security and regional military coordination.

But that argument leaves an important question unanswered: where should Washington draw the line between maintaining an alliance and committing American resources to a war whose costs are ultimately borne by the American public?

The economic consequences may also last beyond the fighting. Disrupted energy supplies, uncertainty over regional trade routes and pressure on international markets can continue affecting businesses and household budgets long after military operations end.

Reuters reported ahead of the midterms that inflation remained one of the biggest sources of frustration among voters, with high prices, housing costs and borrowing expenses continuing to weigh on households.

Democratic control of both chambers of Congress will make it harder for Trump to push his legislative agenda through. The administration is likely to face closer scrutiny over military spending, its handling of the war and future funding requests. But that does not mean the campaign will automatically end or that Washington will suddenly change its position on Iran. The president retains considerable authority over military operations and foreign policy, while Congress can oversee the administration and approve funding.

Nor is there any guarantee that Democrats will agree on what should come next. Opposing the war is one thing; agreeing on an alternative is another. Diplomacy, sanctions and future relations with Tehran could divide lawmakers just as much as the war itself has brought them together.

The midterm results have changed the balance of power in Washington, but they have not answered the bigger questions surrounding the war or America’s long-term approach to Iran. What they have exposed, however, is the growing tension between Trump’s promise to put America first and Washington’s continued military and political commitments abroad.

The relationship with “Israel” has also become part of a wider domestic debate over how Washington defines its interests and where it draws the line on international commitments. A war fought thousands of miles away can quickly become a domestic issue when its costs show up at the gas pump, in household budgets and in decisions over public spending.

For Trump, defending the campaign on military and security grounds is no longer enough. He must also answer to voters who were promised that their interests would come first.

And that brings the debate back to the question that has followed this war from the beginning: How far can the United States go in pursuing its commitments abroad before the costs begin to undermine the very promise that brought its president to power: America First?

What If Trump Uses a Nuclear Bomb Against Iran?

By Mohamad Hammoud 

The Nuclear Threshold

No country has used nuclear weapons in combat since the United States bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Despite decades of wars and confrontations between nuclear powers, the fear of catastrophic consequences has helped preserve that restraint. Now, allegations that Donald Trump is being pressured to use a nuclear weapon against Iran raise the possibility of breaking this eight-decade taboo, with consequences extending far beyond Tehran and raising questions about Iranian retaliation, the security of Washington’s regional allies, and whether other nuclear powers would begin treating nuclear weapons as usable instruments of warfare.

Netanyahu’s Pressure and the Legal Question

On November 2, the “Jerusalem Post” reported that Tucker Carlson alleged Benjamin Netanyahu was pressuring Trump to use a nuclear weapon against Pickaxe Mountain, near Iran’s Natanz complex, because conventional bombs could not penetrate its underground defenses. Although Carlson’s allegations remain unverified and Trump has publicly rejected nuclear use against Iran, the possibility raises a consequential question: would American military commanders comply with such an order?

While Washington has no blanket no-first-use nuclear policy, military commanders are legally obligated to reject manifestly unlawful orders. Former US Strategic Command chief Robert Kehler addressed this principle during a 2017 Senate hearing, confirming that an illegal nuclear order could be refused. Whether a particular strike would violate international humanitarian law, however, would depend on military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and foreseeable civilian harm. Military resistance therefore remains legally possible, though far from guaranteed.

Iran’s Response: From Dimona to the Gulf

Iran’s retaliation could have catastrophic consequences not only for the United States and its allies but also for the global economy. In April 2024, Reuters reported that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander warned that if “Israel” attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, Tehran could retaliate against “Israeli” nuclear installations, including the Dimona complex, where damage to radioactive materials could contaminate surrounding areas.

Beyond nuclear facilities, Tehran could intensify missile and drone attacks against American military bases and strategic infrastructure across the Gulf, including energy terminals, ports, and transportation networks. Such attacks could further disrupt regional oil production and exports, while additional restrictions on shipping through the already partially closed Strait of Hormuz could deepen the disruption to global energy supplies.

Iran could also disrupt international communications by damaging undersea fiber-optic cables linking Asia, Europe, and Africa. Such an operation could interrupt internet connectivity, financial transactions, and international commerce, extending the economic consequences far beyond the Middle East.

Fallout Would Cross Borders

Beyond Iran’s retaliation, the nuclear strike itself could endanger Washington’s regional allies, as radioactive fallout would not necessarily remain within Iranian borders. Depending on the weapon’s explosive yield, detonation depth, and weather conditions, winds could carry radioactive particles into neighboring countries, contaminating farmland, water supplies, and populated areas.

The consequences could be especially severe for Gulf states, which depend heavily on desalination for drinking water. Radioactive contamination near seawater intake facilities, or precautionary shutdowns to prevent exposure, could threaten water security and disrupt essential services. Although the extent of contamination would depend on the strike’s location and prevailing weather, Washington could not guarantee that its allies would escape the environmental and humanitarian consequences.

A Dangerous Precedent for Nuclear Proliferation

Beyond the immediate destruction, an American nuclear strike could undermine decades of efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. Rather than discouraging Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it could convince Tehran that only a nuclear deterrent could protect it from future attacks, while encouraging other non-nuclear states to reach the same conclusion.

The implications could also extend to existing nuclear powers. Russia could invoke Washington’s use of nuclear weapons to justify escalating its nuclear threats over Ukraine, while China, despite its declared no-first-use policy, could accelerate its nuclear buildup amid tensions over Taiwan. Although neither response would be inevitable, breaking the nuclear taboo could weaken the restraint that has helped prevent nuclear warfare since 1945.

A Weapon Without a Controllable Victory

Even if Washington possesses the military capability to launch a nuclear strike against Iran, it cannot guarantee control over the consequences. Rather than securing a decisive victory, such an attack could trigger regional retaliation, endanger American allies, and encourage other nuclear powers to follow its example. Whatever pressure Netanyahu may be exerting on Trump, as Carlson alleges, the United States would ultimately bear responsibility for unleashing a crisis it could neither contain nor easily reverse.

The question, therefore, is not whether Washington can use a nuclear weapon against Iran, but whether it can afford the consequences.