A recent and highly significant conversation between Tucker Carlson and Joe Kent, two figures who emerged from the “America First” movement and Trump’s political camp, goes beyond a routine criticism of the Iran war. The issue now on the table is a claim that the option of using a tactical nuclear weapon against Iran has been raised in Pentagon meetings. The claim has not yet been independently confirmed by official sources, but given the standing of the people making it, it cannot simply be dismissed. Carlson and Kent have discussed the possibility that this option is being examined, the risk of the war spreading to Lebanon, the situation in Ukraine and, most importantly, the possibility that the Iran war has entered a phase in which it could move beyond the control of the main actors.

The significance of this warning lies not only in the “atomic bomb” itself, but in the fact that if such an option has indeed been considered within the US military establishment, as Kent and Carlson claim, it would indicate the depth of the deadlock the Iran war has reached. A war that was supposed to be short and decisive has now continued for more than six months, while US objectives have also shifted along the way. Washington initially focused on destroying Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities and weakening its allied forces, but the Strait of Hormuz and economic pressure have now become major concerns, while negotiations have also reached an impasse.

A major contradiction has emerged here: continuing the war is costly, while ending it also carries political costs for the Trump administration. Trump began the war promising a swift victory, but now faces a conflict that has dragged on, put pressure on energy prices and Americans’ cost of living, and seen public support decline. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that only 31% of Americans support military action against Iran, while support among Republicans has fallen from 77% in March to 69%. At the same time, 83% of Americans expect the war to be prolonged.

Under these circumstances, the possible inclusion of a nuclear option in the war calculus would fundamentally change the situation. A tactical nuclear weapon, even if military planners regard it as “limited,” is still a nuclear weapon, and its first use could break one of the most important security taboos of the post-World War II era. The main danger is not merely the scale of destruction caused by an attack; it is the chain of reactions that could follow once this threshold is crossed and that would no longer be easily predictable.

Under such circumstances, even calculating the other side’s response becomes more difficult. Some analysts in Iran have previously warned that taking the war to the nuclear level could trigger asymmetric and unpredictable responses. This could mean that Iran might also move toward the use of chemical, biological or radioactive weapons; however, no official evidence has accompanied such a claim to date. The core warning, however, cannot be ignored: when a nuclear power crosses the threshold of first use, it is no longer possible to confidently assume that the subsequent responses will remain limited.

This concern makes the Carlson-Kent conversation particularly significant given their positions. Neither man is speaking from outside the Trump movement. Joe Kent, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center under the Trump administration, resigned in March in protest of the Iran war and said that Iran had not posed an immediate threat to the United States. He described the war as contrary to the promises of “America First” and warned that the United States should not once again become involved in endless wars.

Carlson, who for years has been one of the most prominent media figures close to Trump and MAGA, has likewise become a major critic of the war since it began. He now even argues that if the US president is genuinely considering the first use of a nuclear weapon, the issue should become a “red line” and lead to his removal from office.

This development is particularly significant in the context of the November congressional elections. The Iran war is no longer simply a foreign-policy issue; it has become intertwined with gasoline prices, inflation, government spending, US military casualties and the credibility of Trump’s promises to end endless wars.

Recent reports also indicate that the Iran war is reshaping the political environment ahead of the midterm elections, with Republicans in competitive districts facing questions about how closely they should tie themselves to Trump’s policies.

From this perspective, the Carlson-Kent conversation can be viewed as more than a political program. It may be part of a broader struggle over how “America First” should be redefined. If “America First” once meant opposing foreign intervention and endless wars, part of the MAGA movement is now asking how that slogan can be reconciled with a prolonged, costly and potentially nuclear war.

For Republicans, this could become a strategic divide between those who view continued pressure and war as a demonstration of American strength and those who believe America’s strength lies precisely in its ability to prevent endless wars and control their costs. Democrats, meanwhile, could turn the economic and human costs of the war into an electoral issue against Republicans.

The real significance of Carlson and Kent’s warning, therefore, may not lie in the bomb itself, but in the moment when the bomb could become the point where foreign war, strategic crisis and US domestic politics converge.

The Iran war is now unfolding simultaneously in the Strait of Hormuz, the Pentagon and American public opinion. If the nuclear option has genuinely entered the war calculus, the question is no longer simply how to win; it is whether Washington can find a way out before crossing a threshold whose consequences can no longer be controlled.

And perhaps for this reason, one of the most important arenas for the continuation of this war may not be the Persian Gulf, but the struggle over the new meaning of “America First” on the eve of the November elections.