The Foundation for the Defense of Democracy’s Andrea Stricker tuned in to Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley’s testimony before the House Appropriations Committee this past Thursday. Stricker quotes Milley stating that the United States “remains committed, as a matter of policy, that Iran will not have a fielded nuclear weapon.” Stricker observes that this statement, as well as a similar comment by Milley last September, suggests the Biden administration is prepared to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands provided the weapon is not “fielded” — that is — deployed. Perhaps it depends on the meaning of “fielded.”

Stricker adds:

Gen. Milley warned, “We, the United States military, have developed multiple options for our national leadership to consider if or when Iran ever decides to develop an actual nuclear weapon.” Yet his reference to “a fielded nuclear weapon” introduced uncertainty about whether America would use force to stop Iran from breaking out of its nonproliferation commitments and producing one or more nuclear weapons.

The Wall Street Journal reported late Thursday that a National Security Council spokeswoman told the paper, “the United States is committed to never allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.” However, she did not explicitly repudiate Milley’s comment.

Stricker reminds readers that a shift in U.S. policy from one of nuclear weapons denial to one of preventing deployment — but not their production — would reflect a major departure. President Joe Biden has said repeatedly that the United States will “never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon” on his watch. Former President Trump insisted, “Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.” Former President Obama declared, “Iran will never be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon.”

I take it that it’s all blather and that the United States is okay with Iran’s development and deployment of nuclear weapons. It would surely be more hazardous to act after Iran has fielded such weapons. The Milley modification, if that is what it is, should probably be clarified, not that the clarification would be believable either.