Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar Says Trump Will Resort to Using Tactical Nukes on Iran

Bomb Iran Night and Day But Destroy USA

Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar: Iran to Break US Naval Blockade By Force as Trump Demands Total Surrender

NIMA: Hi everybody, today is Monday, August 17, 2026, and our dear friend, our brother Anthony Aguilar, is here with us. Welcome back, Anthony.

LT. COL. AGUILAR: Hi Neema, thanks for having me.

NIMA: Great pleasure, as always, Anthony.

And let me start with what's going on between the United States and Iran.

As you know, that MOU, that 60 days—you know, last night that was the final day of, you know, yesterday was the final day of the MOU, that 60 days that was defined during the, you know, negotiations.

But the Iranian Foreign Ministry said that it doesn't mean that they cannot extend that time, because there was no mention of 60 days, the timeline, the deadline in that MOU, in that document.

The other point is that Iran is saying, as Reuters reported, that Iran said sooner or later they're going to do something about the blockade.

It means that maybe some sort of confrontation.

We're going to see—just an hour ago we learned one of the tankers from UAE is being seized in, close to the Qeshm Island in Iran.

It was using—basically was using—the designated route that Iran has, you know, designated, and it was seized in that island, Qeshm Island.

And the other point is Donald Trump is demanding total surrender.

He says that Iran has to do something about it.

He even today, again, for the second time, he said, "We're going to bomb Oman," and he's not happy, what it seems he's not happy with what's going on between Iran and Oman, and the new mechanism they're defining for the trade of arms.

Looking at what's going on, Tony, and the other—I just forgot to mention the other point that was mentioned yesterday by Marjorie Taylor Greene, that she said that they're seriously talking about the use of nuclear bombs, and how is that going to change the situation with this trade of arms.

What is your understanding of what's going on between the two sides, the United States and Iran?

LT. COL. AGUILAR: Well, that's a great introduction to the important topics, and to reiterate, the use of a nuclear weapon, a tactical nuclear weapon, is a consideration and a risk that I have been concerned about since we first started discussing this conflict back in the 28th of February, going into March and beyond, simply because of the military options, the limited military options, the lack of the political will, the national will.

You know, I always circle back to the national power and the trinity in terms of the governed—the governing and the security, or the defense of a nation.

And going into this conflict, it could not be won through missiles and blockades.

Those aspects don't win wars.

And the United States, the governed, does not have the appetite or the national will to go into a prolonged ground war.

So looking at this in terms of how does Donald Trump attempt to achieve a military solution to bring negotiations back to the table, especially since 60 days ago, the most feasible off-ramp being the 14-point memorandum of understanding, which did expire this morning.

And also, to your point, there wasn't an official 60-day calendar in the MOU, but it is what was discussed in the informal discussions in terms of how this MOU would play out, in terms of conditions to be met within the first 30 days with the trade of Hormuz, and then the first—and then the next 60 days going on with the trade of Hormuz, sanctions being lifted, assets being unfrozen, the, you know, what normalcy would then look like under this MOU.

And that off-ramp has long been passed, that we no longer have that exit strategy.

So I fear that a nuclear option has long been on the table.

We know this based on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Kane, having to bring the President off the edge, whether it meant, you know, withholding the codes, standing firm on no-sir, we're not going to do that option in the midst of him even being fired, if that were the case.

We know that the nuclear option has been discussed.

So I'm very confident that the United States government, the President of the United States, the national command authority, is going to exercise a tactical nuclear option, because, as you alluded to again in your great introduction, where is the political off-ramp?

Where is the return to diplomacy?

We now have the United States and Iran with maximalist demands.

Donald Trump has now gone back to unconditional surrender.

Iran is not going to capitulate to unconditional surrender unless they are militarily brought to their knees, which is not going to happen, and if so, not anytime soon and without a lot of U.S. loss in blood and treasure.

And I want to—I want to just emphasize another point here, and that the nuclear option is not something that I advocate, encourage, or would ever want to see happen.

However, as a realist, looking at what has been discussed, and now that we have Marjorie Taylor Greene, who though she is no longer a sitting member of the United States Congress as a representative of Georgia, she is still likely in touch with people that know things.

And we already know that the nuclear option in the formal channels has been discussed.

That's no longer—that's no longer a secret.

I also take the other considerations around the nuclear talk.

The United States maintains a robust arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, over 200 of them, nearly 60 of them are in Turkey.

These nuclear weapons can be moved into the area of operations with that.

In fact, if I were a betting man, I would say that they're already there. And the B61 gravity nuclear bomb can be deployed from an F-35.

It cannot be from an F-22 because of the bomb bay design of the F-22, but it can be deployed from an F-35, it can be deployed from an F-16, all of the aircraft of which we do have available in theater.

So when you take the fact that the capability exists, now that there's the propensity or the will for it to be, and the fact that the delivery option of the aircraft that can deliver it, or the means of delivering it through other precision strike missile warhead adaptation, which is all feasible, is all present in theater.

So I fear that in addition to being on the precipice of a regional greater war that is becoming every day, becoming more and more World War III in the actual sense of a world war, that we will see the deployment and use of a tactical nuclear weapon by the United States of America on Iran in the near future.

That I feel very confident that we're going to see that.

And the reason I also think that I kind of alluded to other considerations is that in the past 30 days, or I would say the past 2 months now, it's been a little bit since that, maybe the last 30 days.

I have to go back and look at my dates, but Army General Chris Donohue, the commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, was fired by Pete Hegseth.

The commander of the U.S. Army 5th Corps, the theater army for Europe, Charlie Costanza.

And these two men are officers that I have worked with, worked for, and know.

And they stand firm on values and principles, and they are very knowledgeable and experienced, not the type of general officers you would want to fire in the midst of any type of war, regardless of where it was, but they were fired. Why?

Well, the staging of the U.S. tactical nuclear arsenal is in Europe.

The theater commander and the Army sub-unified theater commander, General Donohue and General Costanza, are the general officers with the authority to deploy, use, move those munitions.

I am very confident that that conversation happened between the President, Pete Hegseth, the Chairman, and the UCOM commander, General Alex Grinovich, who also came out public on the record and said, "Hey, the United States can no longer protect its interests and continue supporting Israel in this war.

We cannot do both." That was that general.

And then soon after, two other Army generals were fired.

I believe that they were fired because they put a firm foot down on, "No, we're not in support of that course of action."

If you want to pursue that course of action, President, if you want to pursue that course of action, Secretary, we don't support it.

And they were subsequently fired.

Why else would the two leading commanders of the theater command and the sub-unified combatant command be fired from an European command? Why?

Doesn't make sense.

Unless you look at the nexus to UCOM, United States UCOM, a combatant command, is the primary supporting command for U.S. central command in this conflict with Iran.

So as I look at all of those indicators and I connect all of those, I'm very confident that the President of the United States is pursuing options for the use of a tactical nuclear weapon.

It will likely be used on Pickax Mountain or somewhere in the—in one of the Isfahan or Fordham, but we know that we've struck those before, going all the way back to Operation Midnight Hammer, and it did not yield the success or the obliberation that Donald Trump tried to sell to the American people.

So the President has also alluded to, if you go back to about 2 weeks ago in his saber rattling and round of banter at that point, was that if Iran doesn't comply and give up the straight and negotiate, that the United States will use a weapon that hasn't been seen since World War II.

Well, there's only one weapon that I can consider that would have that level of threat, and that would be a nuclear weapon.

So I am very concerned that the United States is moving more and more towards that option, which will only lead to a greater range of conflict that the United States cannot address in the region.

If they use a nuclear weapon, it's going to be a tactical move to achieve a strategic gain.

What would that be, Anthony?

What would be that strategic win out of this tactical use of nuclear?

You've mentioned Pickax Mountain. I totally understand that.

They believe that maybe that 400, 400-plus enriched uranium is there under that mountain.

That's why they're trying to hit that.

But the outcome of that, how do you see the repercussions of using a nuclear bomb, a nuclear weapon again?

Well, it will not—excuse the noise, I'm printing out a picture of the B61 tactical nuclear bomb so people can kind of get an idea of this.

You know, when people think nuclear weapon, we often think of the weaponry within the U.S. nuclear triad associated to mutually assured destruction, Cold War.

You know, when what was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that level of destruction, that level of nuclear bomb, that level of brinksmanship.

So the difference in that is that we're not talking about a strike from a Minuteman III nuclear weapon.

We're not talking about a strike from a B-52 with a Yankee M, whiskey Yankee M, that type of nuclear bomb.

We're not talking about a Trident II being fired from an Ohio-class submarine, although that is certainly an option, because the USS Alaska, which is an Ohio-class nuclear-powered but also nuclear warhead-enabled submarine, is sitting in the Persian Gulf, or excuse me, in the Indian Ocean.

So that's an option. But we're not talking about that.

What we're talking about is the deployment of the B61 tactical nuke.

And that is kind of the industry standard that the United States has now gone to in terms of its nuclear arsenal since the end of the Cold War.

And that B61 nuke, that's this guy right here. You see it on a little carrier?

It's about the size of a JDAM.

It's about the size of other—in fact, it's smaller than a JDAM or other 2,000-pound bombs to the like that Israel has been dropping on Gaza every day and continues to do.

It's not even as big as one of those. It's the—obviously the tactical yield.

More so than the explosive power, more so than the destruction, more so than what it will or will not do, because I personally think that dropping the B61 nuclear bomb, tactical nuke, on Pickax Mountain isn't going to do anything but leave a pretty nasty scar in the dirt or in the face of the mountain.

Pickax Mountain is buried under almost 400 feet of solid granite.

It's not the only way.

And I know this because going back to con plan options, looking at North Korea, Iran, what we called hard target defeat, or hard targets being underground, reinforced, in bunkers deep in the ground.

The only way to get into Pickax Mountain and actually take, neutralize, destroy what may be of the nuclear capability of enriched uranium is to put boots on the ground, go in, and get it.

And we know that that option will not succeed.

The option of dropping a nuclear weapon is also not going to achieve that strategic objective.

Remember the objectives that were laid out in terms of why we're fighting this war, and the irony of the fact that the reason now we're still fighting this war over the Sleuterkremis is a reason that was not even one of the objectives that we went to war for?

I mean, the irony just drips in that.

But looking at the use of a tactical weapon on Pickax Mountain will not achieve the strategic goal.

What it will do strategically is create a whole nother level of mess when you consider China a nuclear power, Russia a nuclear power, Pakistan, now part of the alliance with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, a nuclear power.

And you consider that those energetic remainders and second and third order effects in the area of what can then come next in terms of nuclear escalation.

That's the real concern to this, which I do not think the President is considering.

So what will the use of this B61 gravity bomb—it only weighs, the warhead only weighs about 700 pounds.

I mean, you can bench press that, Nima. That's not a lot.

So when you think about the use of this bomb and what it will achieve, not much.

It's the maximalist position that Donald Trump has gone back to.

We've seen that time and time again, that Donald Trump continues to go back to this maximalist demand, and it does not achieve the effect of ending this conflict.

I believe that Iran is open to diplomacy.

I believe that on the conflict continuum, here we are, kind of going back between this road to diplomacy or large all-out war.

Diplomacy or all-out war, right?

Well, that return to diplomacy pathway is not in control of the United States.

The United States no longer has the leverage or the political control in this pathway to avoid war.

Iran controls that pathway, but Iran is not going to give in to diplomatic or political demands that are any less than what Iran demands maximally.

So when you have two positions of maximalist position, maximalist strategic demands, it doesn't pretend well for an end to a conflict.

And I do think that we're going to see—because here are the military options, and I looked at this and I think your audience will find this—I found it intriguing.

I found it so interesting to look at the—how are we fighting this war right now?

We're trying to make it a carrier battle. We're trying to make it a navy battle.

We're trying to make it a navy war. Well, we've all heard the news lately, right?

And that's another thing, if there's time in the segment, that I really want to hit home for the sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, or CVN 72, because I think more people need to hear the truth of the reality of what we're facing, what the United States is facing right now, because we were not prepared for this conflict.

Right now, the USS George Washington, a Nimitz-class carrier, is on its way or about to be into the Arabian or the Indian Ocean to replace the USS Abraham Lincoln, CVN 72.

You notice those CVN numbers in terms of 72, 73?

That means they were made right after each other.

They are both Nimitz-class.

The George Washington is not some advanced, save-the-day, latest advancement of Ford-class carrier that's coming to save the day.

The George Washington is as old as me. It was designed 44 years ago.

It's been on the sea for nearly 35 years.

And I, you know, when you consider, you know, here's the, you know, the—I kind of, I went to the US Naval Institute page.

I didn't just make this up. I didn't get this off of Wikipedia.

I didn't get it from what I heard.

I went to the United States Naval Institute official site to look at the condition of these ships.

The USS George Washington was designed in 1982. It hit the water in 1992.

It's a 44-year-old design, 34 years on the water, and it's replacing the USS Abraham Lincoln, which was designed in the same year.

They're both Nimitz-class carriers.

And what's worse is that what's going along with the USS George Washington here, Nimitz-class CVN 73 to replace the Lincoln, Nimitz-class CV— Yeah, you're back.

You're back.

CVN 72, the USS George Washington, as part of its carrier fleet or its carrier strike group, is another US ship called the USS Benfold, DDG 65.

It didn't go with the George Washington initially, because remember, the George Washington is a Pacific Command carrier.

It's being averted, re-designated to replace the Lincoln, because this was never intended to be in terms of deployment length.

The USS Benfold didn't go with the Washington. It's catching up now.

It's getting out there now because it was in the Philippines getting replaced or getting repair parts done to repair its air conditioner, to repair its electric system, to replace all these things that were falling apart because it's an older-class destroyer.

So we're sending to the area of operations, not the newest, most advanced, we're sending the old stuff.

Because quite frankly, that's all the United States has right now.

Because remember the old USS Ford? Remember that guy?

USS Ford was a Ford-class carrier, our newest and best and most advanced, hit the water in 2017.

Well, that's back getting repaired because it had a laundry room fire, supposedly.

I think it was struck by Iranian drones or Iranian anti-ship missiles or torpedoes, but that's out of the fight.

The USS John F. Kennedy, the next in line in the Ford-class, just got the check, if you will, the all-clear.

That was in the news on Friday.

It passed sea trials and it's going to be underway soon.

Well, they hurried that. They sped it up.

And when you take something of that, of that max, of, you know, of that magnitude, and you speed up the process to get it approved, there's probably going to be problems with it.

Maybe another laundry room fire. I don't know.

But it's not ready to go into war yet.

So we're fighting this war with Iran with old, broken-down stuff, with sailors and airmen and soldiers that have been put back and forth and Marines back and forth on, we're going in, we're not, we're going in, we're not.

We still have the 82nd Airborne Division deployed in the region just waiting.

We still have the 5th Amphibious Response Group just sitting there waiting on the USS Boxer, which is a Wasp-class carrier, which you want to talk about old? I mean, old.

So, you know, and oh, by the way, the Washington is going to replace the Lincoln to join the USS G.W. Bush, another Nimitz-class, another Nimitz-class carrier that is old.

So what are the military options?

What are the military options for the President of the United States offered to him by Admiral Brad Cooper, the US Central Command commander?

What options are available militarily to compel Iran to come back to diplomacy?

There aren't any. We've expended our precision strike munitions.

We've expended our tactical and operational range precision munitions and our strategic.

We don't have military ops in short of. Either we have to send in ground forces, or we have to have another way.

And this harkens back to the decision that Truman had to make in World War II, right?

Do we invade mainland Japan?

We know it's going to cost hundreds of thousands of lives of soldiers and sailors and Marines.

America won't stand for that.

We can't put American lives at risk.

So we're going to use the nuclear bomb. And we did.

I believe that Donald Trump feels that he is facing that same calculus.

I feel that it's self-imposed based on the failure of this conflict and the lack of strategic production. But trying to put myself into the, you know, kind of into the mindset of the President of the United States, I feel that he has convinced himself that those are his options.

It's either ground troops, where thousands of Americans will die, ships will sink, or nuclear option, which won't end the, it won't do anything to end the conflict, but it will give Donald Trump an exit strategy.

Because if Donald Trump can convince his MAGA base, remember, midterms are coming up in November, guess who's also facing elections here pretty soon?

Netanyahu. Both of them want a way out of this quagmire.

Both of them want a way out of this mess.

Using a nuclear weapon, regardless of the truth.

Remember in the whole aspect that I mentioned before of DIME, right, of the, you know, information, misinformation, and disinformation, Donald Trump has no problem lying to the American public.

He's doing it right now in terms of conditions on the USS Lincoln.

So when you look at the aspects of what it will yield, it won't.

But Donald Trump can sell it as a win to his hawkish MAGA base, to Americans that still want to believe that we are winning or can win this conflict, which we are not and we cannot.

But to give them that victory of, look, Sleuterkremis was never part of our concerns. Who cares?

Straight to what? Regime change? Don't care.

If the people of Iran want a regime change, they can do it.

We gave them the keys to the kingdom. It's up to them.

That's how Donald Trump sees it.

But the nuclear aspect is something that he has hung his hat on from the beginning, right?

Whether it was Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, Admiral Cooper, all of them.

The various objectives, it's always come back, the one you can pick out that's always the same is this, they can't have a bomb.

Iran can't have a bomb. Well, you can't prove that they do. You can't prove that they don't.

All indications from the US intelligence community say that they aren't.

But hawks, war hawks in the government say that they are.

So what better way to find an exit strategy or attempt one?

I don't think it will succeed as an exit strategy, but at least to give the perception of an exit strategy as we approach November.

Look, we destroyed their capability.

The President of the United States was willing to do something that no President since Truman was willing to do.

And he did it to save the world, to keep America safe from an Iranian nuke.

That's the narrative.

I think it's total bullshit, but that's the narrative that the President will try to sow.

Bottom line is, there are no feasible military options to achieve an end state that the President can satisfy to the American people or to his constituents or his base.

And the use of a tactical weapon is on the table.

It is very likely already in theater.

That picture that I showed you, you know how long it takes to put one of those onto an F-35 or an F-22?

A good weapons mate, a good weapons crewman can do it in about eight minutes.

It's going to be used, I predict. I've thought that since the beginning, because when you look at this in terms of courses of action, there's no way out of this for Donald Trump.

And he's desperately, desperately seeking for a way out.

And desperate men in powerful positions do stupid things.

NIMA: Tony, how is that going to, maybe the other countries, I assume if the United States uses the nuclear weapons against Iran, Iran going to go after, you know, building nukes. And other, not Iran, other countries as well.

Everybody would say, so what's the point of being part of the NPT? What does that mean anymore? That's going to be. I think a lot of countries in the Gulf, in Western Asia, are already questioning that when you consider that Israel has nuclear weapons that they do not disclose, nor do they allow inspectors.

And there's this whole, the Israeli disinformation scheme.

Do we have them? Hmm. Maybe we do, maybe we don't. They have nukes.

Since John Pollard spied on America and sold the nuclear secrets to Israel, Israel has had, they have nukes. Period.

The rest of the region knows that. And when you look at that in terms of the, if you're a country in that region, why should we, why should we play ball by the rules? Why?

Because if you don't have a nuclear weapon and you have a lot of oil, it's very likely that the United States is going to invade you.

Just ask Iraq, just ask Afghanistan, just ask Syria.

If you're an Arab nation and you have a lot of oil and you don't have a nuke, the United States is going to go to war with you.

So any of those countries in there is like, well, the options are, get rid of our oil or get a nuke.

Well, some of those countries can't get rid of their oil because they live on it.

So what's the option then? You get a nuke, or you get friends with nukes, right?

That's the new thing. Friends don't let friends fight without nukes.

That's the new motto of the world at war that we're in.

Saudi Arabia has learned that, right?

You think Saudi Arabia partnered up with Pakistan and Turkey because they like the Turkish coffee?

No. Pakistan's got nukes. And Turkey's got NATO.

Whether they're a good NATO ally is questionable, but they got NATO.

The other thing that is ironic is that, you know, about 54 of these B-61 nuclear bombs are sitting in Turkey without PCLs or protective code lines, meaning they can be used without the US permission.

Is it diplomatic to ask permission? Sure.

If we're fighting by the rules, should you ask permission? Sure.

But when you throw rules out the window and you take international law and international norms and international agreements and international expectations and you throw it out the window, well, then what rules are there?

That's the scary part of what this war has created in the region and in the world. So what will the other nations do?

I think that China and Russia are posed, positioned and posed to assist Iran diplomatically and militarily. They already are. More if need be.

Which is why I think about, just imagine if during World War II, a slight adjustment in the alliances, right?

If, you know, after, you know, Germany and Europe, the United States and Russia and the Soviets were aligned in the fight against Germany.

We were allies. With Japan.

Russians had no love lost for, you know, the Soviets and the Russian.

They had no love lost for Japan.

But just imagine if the alliances were slightly different and the United States used a nuclear weapon in Japan, and there were other nations at the time that also had nuclear weapons, let's say a Pakistan.

Let's say that if the Soviet Union was not our ally at the time after the European front ended, because remember, victory in Europe came before victory in the Pacific.

So imagine if those were slightly different, what the response would have been from the world.

We didn't see it then because we were, you know, us and the Soviets were the only ones that were pursuing weaponized tactical nuclear weapons, period.

But the world has changed.

And this President, I believe, will use a tactical nuclear weapon in Iran soon.

And the result of that will be catastrophic in terms of bringing us where there's no more hiding it.

It's not just me going to be saying it, that we are at world war. Period.

And I don't mean the, you know, the philosophical, well, did World War II ever end?

No, I'm talking about straight up axes and allies, World War III. And we are approaching that.

And the United States is not in a good position economically, not in a good position diplomatically, and not in a good position militarily.

And, you know, it's like, okay, we just talked about all that, right?

Another thing that happened Friday that I think is important to know, Andy Baker resigned from the National Security Agency. That's a concern.

The breakup within the Trump administration.

Andy Baker, Deputy NSA. Well, who's the NSA? Marco Rubio.

Marco Rubio is still dual-headed as the Secretary of State and the Director of NSA of the United States, which is a horrible, horrible idea.

Andy Baker resigned. That is a direct admonishment of the administration.

So there's a lot now that we don't really know what's happening in the administration.

Who's pulling the levers? Who's telling who?

You know, one of the reasons that Andy Baker resigned is because he caught a lot of heat, because last week also, the US intelligence community said that we don't trust Israeli intelligence anymore.

We don't trust it anymore. It ain't worth the paper it's written on.

So now that we've gotten rid of Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Kent, now Andy Baker, these general officers that spoke truth to power, who now is advising the President?

Well, all the people that tell him what he wants to hear.

Pete Hegseth, et cetera. So that's concerning.

But also on Friday, also on Friday, the Commander of US Special Operations Command Central, Army Major General Jasper Jeffers, changed command, handed over the guidon to Rear Admiral Donovan.

Donovan's now going to be the SOCCENT Commander.

Jasper Jeffers is the commander that was named back in January.

The President had a big ceremony in the, when the President had his big ceremony when he announced the Board of Peace and he brought up Major General Jasper Jeffers to accept command of the International Stabilization Force in Gaza.

Well, now that he has relinquished command of Special Operations Command Central, he is now officially, officially the Commander of the International Stabilization Force.

He was with Jared Kushner in these discussions over the weekend with Hamas representatives and then going to talk to the Israeli Cabinet, Netanyahu and Smotrich and others about the next steps in Gaza.

Jasper Jeffers was a part of that. So what does that mean?

Well, the International Stabilization Force calls for, you know, this breakdown that we've seen.

This is the ISF plan, right? Right here.

So right in here, phase one, down here in Tal al-Sultan and Rafah, where I was when I was in Gaza, that's the first zone that's going to be established.

And that calls for a total in phase one of 2,500 US troops.

Not all, not the whole ISF. There's going to be more.

Morocco, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, other, I think, I forget the other countries that are providing forces, but those are the big ones.

But the United States is providing at first 2,500.

So we're now going to have a US commander, a two-star, soon to be three-star Army General in Gaza commanding a brigade-sized force.

So add that to what's going on in the greater conflict between the United States and Iran.

Add that to the fact that over the weekend, Israel has continued to bomb Lebanon mercilessly.

Add that to this volatile situation.

If there's anyone out there that can explain a better situation in terms of a way out, I'd love to hear it, because I don't see it.

And when you talk nuclear weapons, and when you talk old, dilapidated, falling apart aircraft carriers that can't achieve a military victory, and you're talking US boots on the ground in Gaza, this is happening.

This is happening. It's happening. Then, you know, what does that portend?

It's a dangerous situation, Nima.

I'm very concerned about where this is leading in the coming week.

Tony, what's the plan? You mentioned part of this.

You mentioned the southern part, that they're going to, you know, start doing something there.

But it seems that Jared Kushner couldn't convince Benjamin Netanyahu that much.

And the talks are happening as we talk, because yesterday we learned that they were, you know, they had a meeting, Jared Kushner with Benjamin Netanyahu.

And we've heard Ben Gvir talking about the Palestinians, Gazans said, at least we have to kill 30 to 40 of them each day.

And this is not going to be something easy for Donald Trump, even with that plan, that it's totally in favor of Israel. Well, that's where the friction now comes in, right?

And that's where the, you know, because the, you know, some of the folks that are part of the Third Security Forces Assistance Brigade at a Fort Hood, Texas, that is the Security Forces Assistant Brigade or SFAB, aligned to US Central Command, would be the likely option of where the Department of War would move the troops from to it for the International Stabilization Force.

I've sent the information that I have of what I've witnessed in Gaza.

In fact, when Brad Cooper was last in Israel at the UN Humanitarian Coordination site that the United States no longer runs, but was attempting to, everything that I have, my files on the war crimes being committed, literally where the bodies are buried in Gaza, I sent it to him and said, you know, if you are taking over this mission in Gaza, you need to know this.

You need to be aware of this.

So to these military leaders, to which I hope some still have a modicum of morality, and to their oath to the Constitution and not to power, that's a concern for Netanyahu, because the IDF have been able to hide, for the most part. The dam has broke.

But they're still attempting to hide from media, from other military eyes, what's happening in Gaza.

And it was clear to me when I was there that those that they let into Gaza, myself and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, were individuals that they vetted, that they felt were in line with their worldview.

The Infidels Motorcycle Club, you know, the former ground branch director of the CIA who worked with the Mossad for the majority of his life, majority of his career, those were the people they hired.

They didn't expect someone that wasn't a sycophant for genocide to say, hey, whoa, wait a minute, time out, this ain't right.

Well, that's the problem with then allowing the International Stabilization Force into Gaza, where you will have United States military officers like myself looking at that and saying, uh-uh, no, no, no, no. This ain't right.

Not only is this not right, these are war crimes.

And when you have more voices with authority and legitimacy coming out and saying, that's a war crime, that's a war crime, that's genocide, well, then the narrative falls apart even more.

So I think what we're going to see is that Netanyahu is going to continue to be a roadblock, a toad in the road for the International Stabilization Force taking shape.

But the United States, under the command of Jasper Jeffers, because he is now a commander in that respect, he's now the command, that's now his job, that's now his duty, is going to push forward in the planning for that.

So these soldiers will soon start deploying and be put in places in Europe, pre-staged, or put in places in some of our other bases in the region, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, which then leads to more prime targets of military necessity, military use for Iran to potentially strike.

And if I were Iran, I would be looking at that target, just like the United States right now.

Admiral Cooper said to the President last week, you know, this, you know, this guy here, Elmer Fudd, said to the President last week, hey, you want to go back to shooting missiles?

I'm ready. Give them to me, boss. I'm ready.

So the United States Central Command has a very robust joint prioritized targeting list or the JPITL.

Don't think that Iran also does not have a very robust targeting list.

It goes both ways. And we have to acknowledge that.

So I think that we're going to continue to see resistance.

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if, you know, the hot, remember the narrative before was, hey, just release the hostages.

Well, I mean, it's been months, months.

Oh, just put down your weapons.

Okay, Hamas has agreed to that, with certain conditions of, hey, we'll put down our weapons, you do this.

And now Netanyahu is saying, well, we won't do this until you do that.

When has that ever worked in history?

When in history of the world has the oppressed relied on or trusted the morality of their oppressor? Zero times. Never. Nor should Hamas. Nor should Hamas. They shouldn't trust.

If they have a pathway towards laying down arms, it shouldn't be directly with Israel.

There should be an interlocutor.

And that is likely going to be the International Stabilization Force.

So to Major General Jasper Jeffers, who once commanded Delta Force, an officer that I know and have worked with before, the task at hand for you is going to be morality versus politics.

And I hope he chooses correct, because the reason the International Stabilization Force or the ISF will continue to hit roadblocks in its deployment is because Israel does not want others to see the crime scene.

That's simply the truth as I see it. And I was there. I saw it.

Everyone that was there with the GHF and UG Solutions on the ground, they saw what I saw.

The difference is that the lens they saw it through was, this is right.

We're the infidels. We live to eradicate Muslims from the world. Of course, this looks right.

Yay, Israel. That was their lens. My lens was, this is a genocide and these are war crimes.

I guarantee you that there are officers like me who served with me, that are my West Point classmates, that are going to be part of this ISF.

And when they go in and they see it, they're going to say the same thing I did.

And Netanyahu knows that. The IDF know that.

The world knows that. So this ISF is going to have friction taking shape if it ever takes shape.

But the plan, at least, the plan, the plan right now is for five zones, the first of which will be established in the south at a base that is already being built for US troops in southern Gaza, near Tal al-Sultan, near where GHF Secure Distribution Site Number One was.

It's on that same piece of terrain. For the initial introduction of up to 2,500 and eventually 5,000 US troops for this decades-long International Stabilization Force for the reconstruction of Gaza.

And that's scary. And America needs to wake up to this.

The war with Iran is one aspect that every American needs to understand clearly where it is headed.

US troops at the precipice of going into Gaza to be put in between what Israel is doing and the people on the ground.

Every American needs to be aware of what's happening.

And Lebanon, let's not forget. Let's not take our eyes off of what's happening.

Israel struck southern Lebanon over the weekend horrifically.

America, the world, we cannot take our eyes off of this.

Tony, in that meeting that Marjorie Taylor Greene mentioned in her tweet, it said that it was strategy meetings.

Who's in that meeting? Is that Pete Hegseth, General Kane?

And when it comes to the military strategy on the part of the United States, do they have the people who know the ground, who fought, who has been part of the ground operation, who knows the train, who planned the war?

Or these are generals who basically political figures and they don't know what's going on?

Do we know anything about that? Well, you know, let's not pretend.

Marjorie Taylor Greene still maintains contact with people in the know, not on an official capacity.

And I don't think that anyone has passed her classified information.

But it doesn't take a savant in military planning to look who at least has the perspective and experience. It's not as apparent to the layman or to the average observer.

But to anyone that's been in the military or served at that level of the government that has had the access to information that Marjorie Taylor Greene has had, it's not hard to believe that she still maintains contact.

So in the meetings, you know, so here's one quick segue and I'll go back to these meetings.

So the meeting between security advisors and military. Well, that's probably Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, Dan Kane, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Brad Cooper, the US Central Command Commander.

There's always likely Mitch Bradley, Admiral Mitch Bradley, the US SOCOM Commander.

You always got to have that option in there. Delta Force, Navy SEALs, etc.

That's under SOCOM. So he's always sitting in there. You have these meetings.

They probably pull in a Jared Kushner, probably Marco Rubio since he's the NSA.

I guess they would bring in Pulte from the DNI.

I don't know how much he's trusted or how much value added he is, since he's just really filling a seat in place of Tulsi Gabbard, since she resigned.

And you don't have the acumen and the experience and the wisdom of a Joe Kent anymore.

And again, Andy recently resigned last week, so you've got that gap.

So everyone in this presidential cabinet, these meetings, it's a vacuum chamber.

It's all these people telling him what he wants to hear.

And I want to give some understanding real quick to then go back to what Marjorie Taylor Greene may or may not know or what I think she knows.

So Brad Cooper, the US Central Command Commander.

He's not on an aircraft carrier. He's not on the command ship somewhere in the Gulf.

He's not in a bunker somewhere. He's not in the war zone.

US Central Command, the United States Central Command headquarters is in McDill Air Force Base, Florida.

That's where Brad Cooper is right now.

So as US Central Command is at war, Brad Cooper is not in the region.

He is in McDill Air Force Base, Florida. Beautiful, sunny McDill Air Force Base, Florida.

And he gets called to meetings in DC a lot, but he's not flying in and out of the war zone.

This trip that he just took, where you saw on the news over the weekend that Admiral Cooper visited the USS Lincoln, he flew in, gave some comments, flew out, maybe hit some other spots in the AOR, the Area of Responsibility, to shake some hands and talk to people.

But, you know, he's back in McDill Air Force Base.

You know, he's not out there commanding ships in the war. This is not General Patton. This is not General Swartzkopf. This is not, you know, ground force commanders leading their troops. He's in McDill Air Force Base, Florida. And what really bothered me over this particular weekend between Pete Hegseth and his remarks when he was in Panama and Donald Trump in his remarks as he was leaving New Jersey from Bedminster. He had a great weekend, he said. Donald Trump said he had a great weekend. Got a lot done. Pete Hegseth, God knows where he is after his trip to Panama. And Admiral Brad Cooper, the leaders of our military are saying, oh, USS Lincoln, everything's fine. It's not a problem.

They're making it up. Just some disgruntled sailors. Brad Cooper says, I went to go talk to them. Everything's great. No, it's not. America, wake up. It is not okay. All is not okay. And I want to say the difference from that. We all know where the President lives in the White House or Mar-a-Lago or Bedminster or wherever it may be. We know that Pete Hegseth literally kicked general officers out of their housing at, you know, in Washington, DC, so he could move into secure housing. But, you know, Brad, you know, everyone thinks Admiral Cooper in the war, he's not in the war. You know where he lives right? This is Brad Cooper's house. And I'm not doxxing him. I've been to that house. It's on the McDill Air Force Base website, the Admiral's quarters. Brad Cooper, the Commander of US Central Command, I say to you, be a leader.

Represent your sailors and your airmen and your Marines and your soldiers that are out at sea and on the ground and in this war. Because Brad Cooper, that's McDill Air Force Base, Florida. He lives in a six-bedroom, 5,200 square foot house with butlers, cooks, drivers, and aides to camp. Yet he has the audacity to stand by the President when the President of the United States says they should suck it up. Everything's fine. That is a disgrace to the military. It is a disgrace to those service members. And America needs to wake up and call this out. So I just think that's disgusting when you consider. So back to that meeting they had. Yeah, Brad Cooper. Brad Cooper can attend those meetings in person. Because he's, in fact, mark my words, whenever the President is in Mar-a-Lago and having meetings, who do you think's there?

Brad Cooper. He's only 30 minutes away. So these meetings that they have, it's an echo chamber. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the information that she may get is either from former colleagues that are in the room, other military commanders that are aware of what's being talked about. We know that this administration is leaking like a 200-year-old dam, leaking like a sieve of information. Did the information that she get get leaked? I don't think so. You can put two and two together. But also over the past weekend, last week into the weekend, you know, Tucker Carlson hosted a big old meeting with Marjorie Taylor Greene and Joe Kent and others. What do you think they talked about? You know, they didn't talk about the weather in Amarillo. They talked about this conflict. So yeah, they're aware of what's happening. And the revelation of the United States or the President of the United States more so reaching for the nuclear option doesn't shock me one bit.

In fact, what I'm more surprised about is that he hasn't done it already. It's coming. It's coming soon. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Anthony. Yeah, it's complicated. It's unbelievable what's going on. It's complex. It's complicated. It's complicated when we want to still believe that rationality is the guide. It will always be complex. It's complex. I'll give it, it is complex. But if we still are considering that rational actors are leading, well, then it's complicated. What? How can this be? Let's be honest with ourselves. We do not have rational actors at the helm. We don't. So when you acknowledge the fact that Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth are not approaching this rationally and lying to the American people about the state of affairs of our precision missiles and the state of affairs of our Navy at sea, can you imagine that?

Like most Americans and anybody listening, don't take my word for it, go to the US Naval Institute where I found the information and look it up. We are replacing an aircraft carrier with an aircraft carrier that is just as old as it is. And I made this point before. The USS Abraham Lincoln that's at sea right now as the lead carrier in the fight against Iran and their asymmetric warfare capability. That aircraft carrier, the exact same one, is the aircraft carrier that George Bush flew onto and landed and told everybody in 2003, mission accomplished. That's the USS Lincoln. The same USS Lincoln that's sitting in the Central Command AOR right now falling apart. So if any American has any doubt in believing our service members aboard that ship, who are you going to trust?

Well, I'll tell you, they're sitting on a 44-year-old boat. Yeah, there's problems. And what's this administration going to do about it? I think Trump is desperate. And as I said before, desperate men in power do stupid things. And I think that's what we're going to see here coming in the next, you know, end of August, September is going to be a critical time for our country. Thank you so much, Anthony, for being with us today. Great pleasure, as always. Thank you, Neema. And take care. And thank you for continuing to elevate these topics, to discuss these topics. It's very important that people realize what the truth is underneath so much complex information. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. See you soon, Anthony. Thank you, Neema. Take care. Thank you. Thank you.

The transcript discusses escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, focusing on the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons by the US.

It analyzes the expiration of a memorandum of understanding, the state of US military readiness, and the perceived lack of viable diplomatic or military options, suggesting a high likelihood of a US tactical nuclear strike on Iran as a desperate measure, potentially leading to wider global conflict.

Key Points

• The 60-day memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the US and Iran has expired, with Iran indicating potential action regarding blockades, and a UAE tanker was seized near Qeshm Island.

• Donald Trump is demanding unconditional surrender from Iran and has again threatened to "bomb Oman," expressing dissatisfaction with Iran's trade of arms mechanisms.

• There is serious discussion about the use of nuclear bombs, with concerns raised about tactical nuclear weapons being a consideration and risk due to limited military options and lack of national will for prolonged ground war.

• The speaker believes the US government is pursuing options for the use of a tactical nuclear weapon, citing the lack of a political off-ramp and maximalist demands from both sides.

• The transcript details the capabilities and potential deployment of B61 tactical nuclear bombs, noting their existence in Europe and suitability for deployment from aircraft like the F-35.

• Concerns are raised about the readiness of US military assets, with older aircraft carriers being deployed to replace newer ones, and the potential for a tactical nuclear weapon use as an exit strategy for Donald Trump, especially with upcoming midterms.

• The potential use of a nuclear weapon by the US against Iran could lead other nations to question the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and pursue their own nuclear capabilities.

• The deployment of US troops to Gaza as part of an International Stabilization Force (ISF) is discussed, with concerns about Israel's actions and the potential for friction.

Takeaways

• The speaker is highly confident that the US will use a tactical nuclear weapon on Iran in the near future, viewing it as a desperate measure due to a lack of other viable options.

• The current geopolitical situation is described as a dangerous path towards World War III, with the US not in a strong economic, diplomatic, or military position.

• The speaker believes that Donald Trump is acting irrationally and is seeking an unreliable actor, using disinformation to sell a narrative of victory to his base.

• The potential use of a tactical nuclear weapon is seen as a strategic gamble that could lead to catastrophic escalation, with other nuclear powers like China and Russia potentially assisting Iran.

• The speaker suggests that the lack of rational actors at the helm of the US government contributes to the complexity and dangerous trajectory of the current conflict.

info@situationpolitics.com

© 2026. SituationPolitics.Com - All rights reserved