The nuclear threshold

US journalist Tucker Carlson suggested that Trump could make a decision for a nuclear strike against Iran on November 7. However, the Republicans losing their majority in Congress following the midterm elections held on November 3 has also changed the domestic political dimension of the Trump administration's Iran policy. Indeed, Representative Ted Lieu stated in a post-election statement that they would work on a bill to end the war with Iran. This development has also opened up a debate on the potential effects of political balances in the US on Iran policy. In fact, the phrase "the regime in Texas changed before the regime in Iran" has become a subject of humor in the country. Furthermore, regarding the allegations of using nuclear weapons, Donald Trump argued that there is no need for this, as Iran's military capacity has been largely eliminated.

These developments indicate that Trump may face stronger political opposition in Congress while taking his next steps regarding Iran. However, it should be noted that the election results do not eliminate the president's military powers. Therefore, the election results do not make a new operation against Iran impossible; however, they stand out as a development that makes such a decision difficult to take.

Whether the nuclear strike claim materializes or not, it is a topic that occupies the world agenda. So, is such an attack really possible? Or, if an attack occurs, what would be its military, political, and environmental consequences?

Possible target and weapon options

Among the targets is the underground facility located on Mount Kazma, near Iran's Natanz nuclear facility. Although the function of the facility and the activities carried out inside are not clearly known, it is argued that this facility should be struck on the grounds that Iran is continuing its nuclear program. In this context, the question of which weapons could be used in a possible attack also comes to the fore.

It has been alleged that the US is considering using its powerful conventional weapon described as the "mother of all bombs" (Iran has also said that it would introduce the father of all bombs in response). However, since the conventional bomb in question cannot destroy a facility located deep underground, the use of an earth-penetrating nuclear bomb such as the B61-11 or B61-12 has been brought to the agenda.

Developments regarding military mobility have also increased assessments regarding the possibility of an operation. Reports were published that the US sent approximately 9 thousand troops to the region in October, and that a large number of US transport and refueling aircraft were deployed to the Ramon Airbase in Israel at the beginning of November. These developments strengthened the claims that preparations were being made for a possible military operation in the region. Furthermore, the deployment of air defense systems to Mar-a-Lago, where US President Donald Trump's estate in Florida is also located, was among the noteworthy developments.

On the other hand, Iran published a video containing the precautions that citizens should take in the event of a possible nuclear attack.

Consequences of a nuclear attack

The allegations that weapons such as the B61-11 or B61-12 could be used in a possible nuclear attack make the nature of the nuclear threat even more important.

It is not possible to say that a possible attack would be on the same scale as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. However, the use of a nuclear weapon with a lower explosive yield does not mean that the consequences will be limited. The effect of a nuclear explosion depends on the power of the weapon used, as well as the burst height, the characteristics of the target, environmental conditions, and the spread of the resulting radioactive fallout.

It is also not sufficient to explain the destructive effect of nuclear weapons only with the energy released at the moment of the explosion. These weapons release a huge amount of energy as a result of the splitting or fusion of atomic nuclei. The released energy causes large-scale destruction through the blast wave, intense heat, and ionizing radiation.

However, one of the most important consequences of nuclear weapons is the radioactive fallout that can occur after the explosion. Especially in explosions that occur near the surface or underground, soil, rock, and other materials can become radioactive and be carried into the atmosphere. Meteorological conditions such as wind and precipitation can cause these materials to spread over large areas. In such a case, not only the targeted facility and its immediate surroundings but also a vast geography crossing borders can be affected. Furthermore, the duration and spread area of radioactive contamination vary depending on the nature of the explosion and environmental conditions.

Here, it is necessary to draw attention to the Chernobyl example as well. However, what happened in Chernobyl was not a nuclear weapon explosion, but a reactor accident that occurred at a nuclear power plant. Therefore, the physical mechanisms and effects of the two events are not the same. Nevertheless, Chernobyl is an important example in terms of showing the environmental and health consequences of radioactive materials crossing borders. A nuclear attack that could take place in Iran would not be limited to a military target, but could have consequences that could affect millions of people living in neighboring countries as well as the Iranian people.

Regional War Risk

It is not realistic to think that Iran would surrender or not respond militarily in the face of such an attack. The Iranian administration may resort to retaliation with the military means at its disposal in the face of an attack that threatens its existence. The statements of Iranian officials indicating that a possible attack will not go unanswered and that the conflict could spread to a wide area are also important in this respect. Therefore, a nuclear attack will expand the geographical and military scope of the conflict instead of ending the war.

Especially the Iranian administration falling into the thought that it has nothing left to lose may cause it to turn to retaliation methods that contain higher risks. This situation will directly affect not only the conflict between the US and Iran but also the countries in the region that cooperate with the US.

Will the attack reach its target?

In evaluating the nuclear attack option, it is necessary to look not only at whether the military target can be destroyed but also at the political consequences of this attack. Striking Iran's nuclear facilities may damage certain elements of the nuclear program. However, this does not guarantee that Iran will completely end its nuclear activities.

Furthermore, such a possible attack may strengthen nationalist sentiments in Iran instead of creating a social reaction against the regime.

Therefore, the fundamental question is not limited to the extent to which a possible operation will damage Iran's nuclear capacity. The real issue is whether this operation can provide the result that could not be achieved in previous military interventions and whether it can end the war. Moreover, the responsibilities that such an intervention may entail in terms of international law, in addition to its military consequences, should not be ignored. The possibility that those who carry out such an attack will be held accountable within the framework of international law, even if not today, in the future, should not be ignored.

In conclusion, a possible nuclear attack against Iran is not just a matter of destroying a nuclear facility or weakening Iran's military capacity. Such a decision will have multidimensional consequences such as the expansion of regional war, damage to energy security, radioactive contamination crossing borders and the weakening of international efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.