Trump Adviser Breaks Ranks on Iran War, Warns of Israeli Nuclear Escalation Risk

David Sacks, President Donald Trump’s artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency czar, became the first senior administration official to publicly criticise the Iran war on Friday, warning that Israel could contemplate using nuclear weapons if the conflict continues and urging Washington to “declare victory and get out.”

Speaking on his All-In podcast, Sacks said “we should probably find the off-ramp,” noting Iran’s military has been devastated, and added: “This is a good time to declare victory and get out, and that is clearly what the markets would like to see.” But he said a “faction of people,” largely within the Republican Party, wants the war to escalate, send in ground troops, and seek regime change—risks he warned could have “truly catastrophic” consequences.

The warning came as Sacks outlined escalation scenarios: “Israel could get seriously destroyed,” he said, before adding, “And then you have to worry about Israel escalating the war by contemplating using a nuclear weapon.” He also warned that prolonged conflict could strain Israel’s air defence systems and described Iran as holding a “dead man’s switch over the economic fate of the Gulf States,” arguing escalation could destabilise energy markets and regional economies.

Nuclear Dimension Transforms Strategic Calculus

The strikes, launched February 28 as Operation Epic Fury, were authorised to “eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, destroy its ballistic missile arsenal, degrade its proxy terror networks, and cripple its naval forces,” following what the administration described as 47 years of Iranian aggression. The joint US-Israeli operation assassinated Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, whose compound was destroyed, along with other Iranian officials.

Israel is estimated to hold roughly 80 nuclear weapons according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, with the Arms Control Association estimating about 90 nuclear warheads and enough fissile material for around 200 more. Most experts consider the use of nuclear weapons by Israel in a conflict with Iran highly unlikely, noting that nuclear weapons carry immense humanitarian and environmental consequences, and their use would almost certainly trigger global political and military fallout—but analysts argue any nuclear strike would fundamentally reshape international relations.

At first glance, neither the June 2025 operation nor the follow-on attacks of late February 2026 carried real risks of nuclear conflict—allegedly launched to prevent Iranian nuclearisation—but in any future armed conflict, Jerusalem could issue deterrent threats of “asymmetrical nuclear war” or Tehran could enlist already-nuclear state allies as equalising surrogates.

Administration Fracture Exposes Policy Disarray

Messaging from Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been varied, with the wide range of motivations cited for attacking Iran sometimes at odds with each other and far from precise, per NPR. The decision to go to war appears to have been largely Trump’s, in consultation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with some Cabinet members reportedly raising concerns about risks but no concerted opposition emerging, according to The Christian Science Monitor.

There are no obvious Iran hawks in Trump’s current Cabinet like the neoconservatives in the Bush administration—instead, foreign-policy hawks have been left out while seasoned military leaders have also been pushed aside, analysts say. Sources told Reuters that economic advisers have warned Trump that rising gasoline prices could quickly erode already-weak domestic support, while more hawkish voices urge him to continue and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons—with one Trump adviser saying: “He is allowing the hawks to believe the campaign continues, wants markets to believe the war might end soon and his base to believe escalation will be limited.”

The Trump team of 2026 appears far more fractured, torn between “America First” isolationism and aggressive interventionism, with Vice President JD Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth publicly stating the goal is not regime change—”We are not at war with Iran, we’re at war with Iran’s nuclear programme,” Vance said—while Trump contradicted them on social media, posting: “If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???”

Energy Markets Price Strategic Instability

Brent crude surged more than 9 percent Thursday as traders weighed the prospect of weeks or months of turmoil, with Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei pledging to maintain effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which he described as a “lever” that “must continue to be used,” per Al Jazeera. Brent futures traded at $101.13 as of 03:00 GMT Friday.

No more than five ships have passed through the waterway each day since strikes began February 28, compared with an average of 138 daily transits before the war, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations centre, with at least 16 commercial vessels attacked since the conflict started. Efforts to calm markets have done little to tame prices, which are up nearly 40 percent compared with before the war—the International Energy Agency’s announcement of releasing 400 million barrels from emergency stockpiles drew a tepid response from traders eyeing a daily shortfall in global supplies estimated at 15-20 million barrels.

Iranian attacks have damaged oil and gas facilities in the Gulf region, and threats against shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have brought maritime traffic to a near standstill, halting oil and liquified natural gas exports, with announcements of closing production fields and LNG export facilities beginning to mount, via the Center for Strategic and International Studies. On Friday, March 6, international Brent oil prices surpassed $92 per barrel, up 28 percent since the previous Friday’s close.

International benchmark Brent crude was trading at about $101 per barrel as of Thursday afternoon, while US benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude was trading at $96 per barrel—up from about $73 and $67 respectively before the conflict began—with the average US gas price at $3.60 per gallon Thursday, up from $2.94 a month prior, The Hill reported.

Diplomacy Credibility Collapsed

Arab nations were particularly disappointed that the US and Israel chose to move ahead with the military option while diplomacy remained possible and are “very concerned” about potential escalation, with one Middle Eastern diplomat telling PBS: “This is precisely what we did not want”—adding that de-escalation is “paramount” because the longer strikes continue “the worse it will be not only for the region but it will be felt around the world.”

Critics say diplomacy with Iran may have been cover for military buildup, as questions grow over whether the US walked away from a real chance at a deal, with NPR reporting that analysts suggest Trump used diplomacy as cover for US and Israeli military buildup. Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, who had been helping mediate talks, said negotiations were ongoing and making progress—writing on social media he was dismayed by the strikes and accused the US of undermining serious negotiations.

The chances for success in Iran-US talks were always slim, with publicly stated red lines by both sides incompatible—meaning negotiations were always likely to fail, according to USC Dornsife. Iran wanted talks confined only to guarantees about the civilian purpose of its nuclear programme, while the US demanded broader restrictions on ballistic missiles and regional military activities—positions neither side was willing to abandon.