Former Official Warns Trump Might Resort to the 'Nuclear Option' Because He Refuses To Accept Loss

A former US State Department official has raised concerns that President Donald Trump might contemplate using a nuclear weapon against Iran. However, there is no verified proof that the administration has decided to take such an action or has developed a plan to do so.

Annelle Sheline, who previously worked in foreign affairs at the US Department of State, suggested that Trump could feel he has exhausted other choices and might resort to the nuclear option as the ongoing war becomes more unpopular and lacks a clear resolution.

Sheline shared these views in an interview that was published on September 22.

Since then, diplomatic efforts have continued, including an Iranian proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restart negotiations, which Trump rejected on September 26, as reported by The Washington Post.

Trump's 'Nuclear Option' Warning

Sheline, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a former foreign affairs officer at the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor's Office of Near Eastern Affairs, told The Mirror US that Trump likely feels trapped.

She said a ground campaign would be political suicide given public opposition and the risk to American troops, leaving escalation as the only apparent path in the eyes of some around the president.

'He may feel his only option is the nuclear option,' Sheline said, adding that she worries Trump may be preparing to escalate because he cannot compel Iran to capitulate without a dramatic move. Sheline said Tehran could be the likely target, and she argued that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were seeking to weaken Iran's leadership.

However, Sheline emphasized that Iran has prepared for any potential attack, including a nuclear strike. She pointed out that Tehran's decentralized decision-making process has maintained government stability even after the assassination of senior officials.

Additionally, she noted that Iranian officials have indicated they would not yield in the face of nuclear devastation.

There is no confirmed evidence of an operational order or military plan involving the use of nuclear weapons.

Sheline described the situation as speculative, based on rumors among Republican figures and political analysts, as well as remarks from some members of Congress who have referred to certain options as 'absolutely horrifying.'

Sheline suggested Tehran could be the target, while saying Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were seeking to remove Iran's leadership. That claim about their intentions remains attributed to Sheline and is not independently established in the material reviewed.

The main question remains whether a nuclear strike would achieve its intended political objectives.

Sheline argued that Iran's decentralized structure might allow its government to continue functioning even if senior officials were killed. 'Other than the absolute devastation it would cause, it wouldn't actually achieve the policy outcome they're pursuing,' she said.

She also noted that Iranian officials have indicated that catastrophic destruction would not necessarily force Tehran to surrender.

Nuclear Escalation Could Spread

Sheline's concern extends beyond the immediate consequences for Iran. She warned that using a nuclear weapon could weaken the long-standing reluctance of nuclear powers to cross that threshold.

Sheline warned that a nuclear strike could break the long-standing nuclear taboo, escalate tensions between India and Pakistan, and potentially lead Russia to consider using a nuclear weapon against Ukraine, according to The Mirror US.

Sheline added that a nuclear strike could push Iran to pursue its own nuclear weapon. She said such a development could encourage Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar to seek similar capabilities.

Those outcomes are not confirmed forecasts. They are Sheline's assessment of the potential consequences of a nuclear attack, rather than evidence that any of those governments have decided to pursue nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

Sheline warned that crossing this threshold could have 'massive' consequences for global security and the international order.

'Sheline expressed concern that after the midterms, Trump may become very unpredictable,' she said. 'If the Republican Party does not do well, he might be especially angry.'

It should be noted that this description reflects Sheline's own viewpoint and should not be considered as an official evaluation of Trump's mental state.

Additionally, Sheline pointed out that there are growing divisions within the Republican Party regarding the administration's policy in the Middle East.

Some people, she said, are questioning whether the policy can be accurately described as 'America First' when it seems more aligned with an 'Israel First' approach.

This disagreement is not seen as direct evidence of a decision to use nuclear weapons.
Instead, it is part of Sheline's explanation for why political pressure might not stop further escalation.

She described the possibility of a nuclear attack as 'astonishing,' arguing that such an action would be both destructive and counterproductive. Her warning is serious, but the available evidence is still limited.

There is no confirmed indication that Trump plans to use a nuclear weapon against Iran.
Instead, what exists is a warning from a former official, based partly on rumors and political analysis.With a claim of this gravity, this distinction is not a minor detail.