DYSTOPIC- Back to the Moon and More On a Nuclear Iran War Off-Ramp
Published 8 days ago • 18 min read
April 3, 2026
Dystopic Newsletter
Back to the Moon and More On a Nuclear Iran War Off-Ramp
The View of Earth Through the Portal of Artemis II ORION Crew Module on the Way to the Moon (NASA)
There has been some incredible news out of NASA this week:
On March 24th, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced NASA’s accelerated “Ignition” directive prioritizing rapid, sustainable lunar surface operations based on a 3-phase 7-year plan.
On April 1st, the first down payment on the plan, Artemis II, successfully launched on a 10-day mission around the moon. The first manned mission to the moon in 54 years.
We’ll dive into the details of NASA’s Ignition and Artemis II program later in this newsletter. But first, let's turn to some updates on the Iran War.
Captain Chaos: While the Military Executes, President Trump’s Impulsive Behaviors are Endangering the War’s End Game.
A brief update on the latest in the Iran War:
The Iran War, while so far militarily successful, has been a diplomatic failure to date. So far, no clear off-ramp or exists at the time I wrote this article
Despite tremendous losses and decapitation of its leaders, Iran has managed to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, threatening the world economy, especially in the far east, with soaring energy costs that will reignite inflation globally.
On March 26, 2026, Donald Trump extended the deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz and avoid strikes on its energy infrastructure by 10 days, setting the new deadline to April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M. Eastern Time (Axios)
Beginning March 29th onward, President Trump confirmed he was considering seizing Iran’s primary oil terminal on Karg Island and other Persian Gulf islands with a “boots on the ground” operation to secure the Hormuz Strait (CNN)
On April 1st, in his address to the nation, President Trump briefly discussed a very risky “ boots on the ground” operation to seize Iran’s enriched uranium from the Isfahan nuclear facility (Al Jazeera)
Also on April 1st, disappointed with NATO Member support for the Iran War, President and key Administration spokespeople have threatened major changes to the US relationship with NATO over the IRAN War (Politico)
As I have maintained in my book and in this newsletter, President Trump's impulsive behavior is bewildering our allies and our enemies. A limited degree of impulsiveness can create strategic ambiguity, whereas excessive impulsiveness erodes credibility.
In just over a month, we have moved from a position in which EPIC FURY would be solely an air war to seriously considering “boots on the ground.” The President’s April 1st Iran War update was clear: operations involving 10,000 or more Army Airborne Rangers and US Marines are on the table. To be clear, these operations will result in 100s of US casualties, if not more.
The expanded scope of the war stems from the strategic miscalculation that Iran would capitulate after the Ayatollah and much of Iran’s senior leadership were killed. Essentially a repeat of the US-Venezuelan operation. Instead, the militant and pervasive IRGC has taken control and refuses to quit.
Dictatorships, including theocratic dictatorships, like Iran, have historically never surrendered. Iran, like Germany and Japan in World War 2, and Saddam Husain, in Iraq, will have to experience complete and total destruction before they will capitulate. In the case of Iran, I predict two conditions could bring what is left of the regime to sue for peace:
Destruction of much of the IRGC. not just decapitation, but outright destruction of these forces. Having decapitated Iran’s theocratic leadership, the IRGC is in control of IRAN. We are talking about killing 10s of thousands of troops and associated collateral civilian casualties to create the conditions for the civilian Iranian’s have an opportunity to take over and
Destruction of Iran’s Energy and utilities (water and sewage) infrastructure. While there would be short term collateral casualties in the thousands, longer term, this would induce massive suffering and death in Iran’s civilian population.
"Control Over Strait of Hormuz Will Determine Who Wins the War"
It will take capitulation of the IRGC to control the Hormuz Strait. A campaign of complete destruction, followed by boots on the ground, will be needed to achieve control.
I have made the analogy in the previous Dystopic newsletter that the Iran War is a parallel to World War 2 Japan. Like Japan, the use of nuclear weapons, specifically a limited tactical nuclear campaign, would end the war quickly while limiting casualties on all sides. Unlike Japan, remote military and nuclear facilities, NOT CITIES, would be the target for 20 to 22 tactical nuclear weapons.
I still maintain that at least the threat of a nuclear off-ramp campaign should be put on the table.
I received a tremendous response to the last Dystopic Newsletter, Ending the Iran War – The Nuclear Off-Ramp Option, and wanted to thank my readers for their thoughtful responses. The general response on social media was the highest ever for a Dystopic. I realized the topic would be controversial, and responses ranged across the spectrum from peace at any price to nuclear warmongering.
There was a common concern expressed across the reader responses:
If the US were to use tactical nuclear weapons, wouldn’t that create a new norm and open the door for their use in other conflicts, like Russia-Ukraine, China-Taiwan, or even India-Pakistan?
I provided a glib answer in the last edition of the Dystopic newsletter:
Nuclear operations have potential geo-political knock-on effects so it is fair to ask:
If the US used nuclear weapons in Iran, what’s to stop Russia from using them in Ukraine?
Would US nuclear use lead to North Korea, Chinese, Iran, or Pakistan's use of weapons?
Are we reopening the nuclear Pandora’s box? A box that has been closed since the end of World War 2?
All of these questions can be answered with a single word: Deterrence
Each of the questioned outcomes is possible today with or without a limited nuclear strike on Iran. Only the US‘s deterrence posture stops these “knock-on effect” actions from taking place. Iran represents an example of where deterrence failed. What will it take to descalate the conflict with a theocratic Iran? A limited nuclear strike may just be the answer.
Chapter 4 - The Elements of Deterrence – The West's Levers of Power to Maintain Deterrence
There is theory, and then there is practice [in Deterrence]. Clearly, the U.S. and our Western Allies seek to moderate the chaos and conflagration spreading across the globe. We seek peace, free and fair trade, and international relations. That is an admirable goal, but how do we achieve it?
We achieve it by building up the "levers of power" elements to detect, understand, counter, and de-escalate the actions of our opponents in the Axis of Tyranny (Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea). The West and the U.S., in particular, wield a set of deterrence elements governed by political, military, and economic strategies and policies, as illustrated in the following diagram.
Elements of Deterrence (P. Struhsaker)
Deterrence requires elements ranging from soft power to hard power, from defensive to offensive. Deterrence requires intelligence and Command and Control to orchestrate a credible threat at all times in the eyes of enemies. We can break down deterrence into the following broad categories, which we will expand on in later chapters:
Economic and Political - Deterrence through Soft Power: Soft power deterrenceincludestariffs, trade embargos, access to credit, holds/freezes on foreign financial assets, and watch lists to restrict travel or apprehend criminals. It also includes actions at the U.N., World Court, World Trade Organization, or other global or regional governing bodies. Soft power is almost always in play because it provides coercion without the threat of violence and is the least likely to trigger an escalation of hostilities.
Command and Control - Deterrence through Situational Awareness & Knowledge: The U.S. DoD uses the term C4I, Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence, to encompass all the tools, services, and functions to assess potential threats and take timely action if necessary. (Worth 2008, vii[7]) C4I runs the gamut from intelligence-gathering satellites to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agents in the field and all the communications, early warning, and threat assessment systems in between. Command and Control operates second by second in real-time across the globe and in space. When North Korea fires a missile test illegally over Japanese air space, or Iran launches what it claims to be a test satellite, is it a hostile act? U.S. and Ally C4I systems and personnel have seconds to determine if these are, in fact, peaceful tests or the first shots in a wider campaign of hostilities. If they are hostile acts, we have seconds to a few minutes to warn the U.S. military and civilian command structure and select an appropriate counteraction. Any mistake could cost millions of lives or accidentally escalate a situation into a world war. It is a daunting task, and for obvious reasons, it is the foundation of Deterrence: know and understand your adversary's intentions and actions at all times and places.
The U.S. Nuclear Triad - Deterrence through Destruction: Strategic weapons are the principal threat that we aim at our enemies, and they aim at us. The threat of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, is so terrible that no major power has been in direct conflict with another since the end of World War 2. The Nuclear Triad is made of (DOD n.d.)
● Nuclear-armed Bombers: Provide the most flexible response in the triad. The act of arming and deploying nuclear bombers provides a visual signal to the enemy in times of crisis. The mix of nuclear weapons in the U.S. bomber force complicates defense for our adversaries.
● Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs): Provide the most responsive weapons in the triad. They are ready to launch within seconds. ICBMs have a global reach and can target any enemy. ICBMs are highly dispersed across the western U.S., complicating any first-strike attempt by an adversary.
● Ballistic Missile Submarines: Provide the most survivable weapons in the triad. There is no reliable way to detect and track U.S. ballistic missile submarines. Like ICBMS, submarine nuclear missiles have a global reach. The U.S. ballistic missile submarine force guarantees that the U.S. has a full second strike capability after receiving a first strike. The secondary strike capability is a critical component of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction ensuring enough destructive force survives a first strike to launch a counter strike to destroy the enemy.
Missile Defense - Deterrence through Protection: A new capability since the end of the last Cold War. The U.S. and its allies, especially Israel, have definitive superiority in missile defense compared to any member of the Axis of Tyranny. We field a range of weapons against ICBMs, aircraft, cruise missiles, and drones. Missile defense not only complicates an adversary's attack, but it can also cripple the attack. The capability to thwart an attack was demonstrated when the U.S., Israel, and other allies destroyed 98 percent of Iran's mass drone and missile attack on Israel on April 13, 2023. (Shaikh, 2024; Lendon 2024)
Space/Cyber – The New Theater of War: Space as a theater of intelligence operations has existed since the dawn of the first Cold War. Radar and optical earth observation, and communications eavesdropping satellite systems have operated since the early 1960s. Space as a possible theater of war and cyber, in general, are completely new elements in our emerging new Cold War. They are highly interrelated as Russia began and continues to conduct cyberwarfare campaigns against U.S. military and commercial satellite systems since the start of the Ukraine War.
The U.S. and the West deploy one or a combination of these deterrence elements at any time to maintain peace or de-escalate violence. Given that there are multiple regional outbreaks of varying levels of violence at any time, a specific combination of these "levers of deterrence” is applied for each regional situation
Now that we have a better understand the levers of power that make up deterrence, Let's answer our readers biggest question:
How does deterrence apply to Iran and the world's other hotspots should the US decide to use a limited tactical nuclear strike against Iran to force a closure to the war?
Iran:
Deterrence has failed. Iran’s sole deterrent was the threat to close the Hormuz Strait, and that lone capability is already being played out. The US’s political and economic soft-power deterrence has largely played out. The US has one economic lever to push: the destruction of Iran's oil infrastructure, which would create a long-term rise in world energy prices and inflation and would spell decades of poverty to Iran's citizens.
Iran has no mutual defense treaty. In fact, Russia, China, and North Korea have offered limited assistance. No nuclear power is willing to offer a “nuclear umbrella” as protection. Iran should have recognized this situation and sued for peace when it had a chance. At this point the US can do as it pleases, including threatening and actually using nuclear weapons.
A rational Iran would have already capitulated – that is the problem, Iran is an irrational actor. They are inviting a limited nuclear off-ramp decision, combined with massive conventional weapons destruction of critical infrastructure.
Pakistan-India:
Pakistan and India are the only two nuclear powers that have violated the golden rule of nuclear powers: Nuclear powers do not directly get into conventional wars with one another for fear of nuclear escalation. Fortunately, they backed off and mutually agreed to a ceasefire during a very brief war in 2025.
With nearly 200 nuclear weapons each, Pakistan and India have created common deterrence through “MAD,” Mutually Assured Destruction. Doubtless, there will be more skirmishes and brief wars in the future; however, MAD holds widescale conflict in check.
Any US actions, even nuclear, in Iran, will not change the deterrence equation between these two countries or lower the threshold for nuclear weapons use.
India-China:
India and China have a history of border skirmishes since the formation of Communist China in 1949. The latest major skirmish happened in June 2020. The dynamic is functionally the same as the Pakistan-India situation, despite some imbalance in their nuclear arsenals; each country has enough weapons that the specter of MAD keeps any military action in check.
Again, any US actions, even nuclear action in Iran, will not change the deterrence equation between these two countries or lower the threshold for nuclear weapons use.
China-Taiwan ( and the US):
China threatens possible military action against Taiwan. Taiwan's deterrence is based on a porcupine strategy; having enough conventional weapons to make an invasion highly painful and hardly worth the price. Add to that a possible US conventional intervention and the costs of a conventional war over Taiwan.
Would China pursue a nuclear option? Unlikely, MAD again holds sway between the US and China. Further, the Chinese are cautious rational actors. President Xi has never acted on impulse and can likely achieve his goals through long-term, persistent strategic patience.
US Nuclear action in Iran would likely make China even more cautious and could actually enhance deterrence.
North Korea:
North Korea has a nuclear umbrella to safeguard from suffering Iran’s fate – forced regime change. They will be no more or no less likely to use nuclear weapons based on US activities in Iran.
Much like China, US Nuclear action in Iran would likley make North Korea even more cautious and could actually enhance deterrence.
Ukraine-Russia:
Here is the one war zone in which it is hard to tell whether US actions would give a green light for Russia to seek a quick victory using Nuclear Weapons. So far, Ukraine's deterrence has been its innovation and execution against an incredibly inept Russian Army and Navy, combined with a massive infusion of funding and weaponry from the collective West.
Russia has always been able to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, yet it hasn’t for two reasons:
The Ukrainian Armed Forces and weapons production are highly dispersed. Unless Russia pursued a “counter-value” nuclear campaign to wipe out Ukraine's population centers. Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons could only damage a small percentage ( likely less than 1%) – no more effective than the current conventional campaign
Fallout from any Russian nuclear campaign against Ukraine, even a limited campaign, will fall on Europe and Russia. Having experienced the Chornobyl nuclear meltdown and radiation release disaster, Russia has a natural abhorrence of the effects of nuclear weapons in its own backyard.
Yet if Russia is losing the war with Ukraine, despite any US military conventional or nuclear action in Iran, a decision for nuclear use would be about the European Theater not at all related to Iran, 3500 km away.
Iran has no real allies or mutual defense agreements. Russian China, and North Korea lack the military power and force projection to intervene on Iran’s behalf.
While there would be varying degrees of moral outrage, the sad truth for Iran is that the US is free to act with any and all force it cares to expend. However, having started the war, the US is obligated to end the war and complete its stated mission
Completely destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities
Completely destroy Iran’s missile production and limit any future capabilities.
Reopen the Hormoz strait
Failure, for President Trump, is not an option. History will serve Trump poorly if he fails to win the peace in Iran.
I hope this extended analysis is helpful … now on a brighter future in space....
IGNITION: NASA Gets Laser-Focused, Accelerating Missions to the Moon as the Pathway to Mars
Right now, every eye is focused on NASA’s Artemis II mission to the moon. That is big news this weekend and all next week. However, Artemis is a small part in an even larger new plan revealed by NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman.
According to Houston Public Media, Isaacman founded two startup companies: Shift4 Payments, a multibillion-dollar payment-processing company founded in 1999, and Draken International, a private defense aerospace company specializing in adversary pilot training. Then went on to fund and command two SpaceX Missions:
· Inspiration4 (2021): The first all-civilian spaceflight in history.
· Polaris Dawn (2024): A mission that achieved the highest earth orbit in history, which included the first private commercial spacewalk performed by Isaacman himself.
A protégé of Elon Musk, Isaacman brings a long-needed entrepreneurial sense of urgency and execution to NASA. He was specifically selected for the position to focus on accelerating lunar missions ("Moon-before-China") and partnering with private aerospace companies.
On March 24th at an NASA media event in Washington, DC, Isaacman announced NASA’s accelerated “IGNITION” directive, prioritizing rapid, sustainable lunar surface operations based on a 3-phase, 7-year plan. A complete transcript of Isaacman’s presentation can be found HERE. This is big news and the functional equivalent of President John F. Kennedy’s iconic "We choose to go to the Moon" speech, delivered on September 12, 1962, at Rice University in Houston, Texas.
So what is the IGNITION Plan – Let's break it down…
NASA’s 3-Phase IGNITION plan to accelerate human permanent moon base and eventually Mars (NASA)
Phase One: Build, Test, Learn – Time frame: NOW NASA shifts from custom-made, infrequent missions to a repeatable, modular approach. Using two new programs, CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) deliveries and the LTV (Lunar Terrain Vehicle), NASA will increase the tempo of lunar activity, sending rovers, instruments, and technology demonstrations for communications, energy generation, life support/operations, mobility, and other long-term technologies needed for humans to live and work in space. Some specifics:
2026: Initiation and Acceleration: The launch of Artemis II (crewed lunar flyby). Launch of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (to investigate dark matter and hunt for exoplanets). Two uncrewed Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) launches to prepare for the lunar base.
2027: Accelerated Lunar Cadence: The launch of the Artemis III mission will be designed to test out systems and operational capabilities in low Earth orbit to prepare for an Artemis IV landing in 2028.10+ CLP launches to the moon, featuring a near-monthly cadence of equipment and rover landings. The CLP missions include, VIPER a mission to survey for water on the moon
2028: Nuclear Power and Mars Push: Artemis IV will land on the Moon. The launch of the Space Reactor-1 Freedom (SR-1) on a nuclear-electric propulsion spacecraft, aiming for a Mars mission to deploy Ingenuity-class helicopters. The launch of the Dragonfly mission to Titan to explore for life, and the Rosalind Franklin Rover to Mars to also search of life. Finally, over 12 CLPS launches to build initial surface infrastructure for the lunar base.
Phase Two: Establish Early Infrastructure – Time Frame: 2029 to 2032 With lessons from early missions in hand, NASA moves toward semi‑habitable infrastructure and regular logistics. Some Specifics:
· The Beginning of Phase 2 will focus on establishing initial operating capability on the lunar south pole, where water ice is believed to be available to support a long-term lunar base.
Deployment of "MoonFall," a team of autonomous, rocket-powered "hopper" drones to explore the rugged terrain of the Moon's South Pole. To support an expanded human presence, solar cells, and early nuclear fission power systems.
Support of a 6-month cadence of crewed landings on the moon for moon base construction,
Phase Three: Enable Long‑Duration Human Presence – Time Frame: 3032 and beyond The next-generation heavy-lift (likely SpaceX Starliner) cargo-capable human landing systems (HLS) will come online. NASA can then deliver the heavy infrastructure required for continuous moon base operations, including:
Long-duration crew stays (28+ days)
Routine logistic deliveries
!Construction of permanent infrastructure, like landing pads.
And then there is MARS …
If you are a fan of the Apple TV+ series “For All Mankind,” This will seem very familiar. As for the rest of you readers. At long last, the US has the plan, execution skills, and drive to turn science fiction into science fact. I’m just glad I’ll be alive to watch it all unfold!
IGNITION is a long journey, and every Journey begins with its first step … that step is unfolding as we speak: ATRTEMIS II
ATMEMIS II – The First Step Back to the Moon
Unless you have been asleep for the last few days, by the time I post this newsletter, the Artemis II mission will have already completed its translunar injection burn and is on the way to the Moon.
There are hundreds of media outlets covering the mission, not to mention NASA itself. I just want to give you a brief summary of the mission and point you to those sources so you can keep up with all the news.
Artemis II lifted off from the Kennedy Space Center at 6:35 pm on the first human trip to the moon in 54 years. The mission will break the Apollo 13 crew’s 1970 record to become the manned mission that traveled farthest from Earth. (NASA)
The Artemis II crew is shown inside the Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in front of their Orion crew module on Aug. 8, 2023. From left are: Jeremy Hansen, mission specialist; Victor Glover, pilot; Reid Wiseman, commander; and Christina Hammock Koch, mission specialist. (NASA)
NASA Official Graphic of the ATREMIS II Mission (NASA)
Based on Reporting by Payload Space, here is a summary of the Artemis II 10 Day Lunar Flyby mission and systems and experiments the crew hopes to accomplish:
Day 1: Flying up to and around the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage—the SLS upper stage—to test Orion’s docking capabilities for future missions.
Day 2: A translunar injection burn that will send Orion on a trajectory to the far side of the Moon.
Day 3: Testing of Orion’s medical kit—including demoing CPR in space—plus comms tests with the Deep Space Network.
Day 4: A 20-minute block to take photos of the celestial bodies visible through Orion’s windows.
Day 5: A morning of spacesuit testing, and the first day that the Moon’s gravity will have more pull on the mission than Earth’s gravity.
Day 6: The big one. The crew will make its closest flyby of the Moon—4,000 to 6,000 miles above the lunar surface—and will break the Apollo 13 crew’s record from 1970 to become the people who have traveled farthest from Earth.
Day 7: The crew will debrief with scientists, while the astronauts’ observations of the Moon are still fresh.
Day 8: Two tests to demo protection from high-radiation events, and the manual piloting of Orion.
Day 9: The crew will test a backup waste collection system and put on their compressional garments to prepare for their return to Earth.
Day 10: Reentry and splashdown in the Pacific Ocean at 17 mph, thanks to a series of eight parachutes deployed in three tranches.
The Artimis II ORION crew capsule is far larger than the Apollo mission crew models. It can carry up to 6 astronauts, compared with Apollo’s 3. Unlike Apollo’s hydrogen fuel cells, Orion uses solar cells for power, eliminating the fuel cell problems seen on Apollo 13. The Orion crew module has enough room for astronauts to exercise (a built-in stationary bike). Most importantly, Orion has greatly improved shielding for the crew against solar and intergalactic radiation.
You can find out more about the Artemis II Orion crew capsule at the NASA website HERE.
Components of the Artemis II Orion Spacecraft (NASA)
We will close with a brief look at the upcoming series of Artemis missions. The Royal Museum of Greenwich provides continuously updated information on the NASA Artemis mission schedule HERE.
Future Artemis missions:
Artemis I (Completed): Uncrewed flight orbiting the Moon in November 2022.
Artemis II (Launching/Live): Crewed lunar flyby launched on April 1, 2026. The 10-day mission is testing the Orion spacecraft with astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen.
Artemis III (2027): This mission will test docking with a human landing system in Earth orbit but will not land on the moon.
Artemis IV (Early 2028): Scheduled to be the first mission to land astronauts on the moon under the revised, delayed schedule
Artemis V (late 2028) and Beyond: Establish a permanent moon base powered by what will likely be the first nuclear power plant in space and prepare for missions to Mars.
Want to know more:
Keep up with the entire mission and discover all of the videos and pictures at the official NASA website:
The University of California has put together an informative presentation with a detailed breakdown of Artemis equipment for thet future Artemis IV (4) – Jim Rauf’s presentation “Back to the Moon.”
That’s a wrap for this week …
Dystopic- The Technology Behind Today's News
Thank you for your readership and support. Please recommend Dystopic to friends and family who are interested, or just share this email.
Not on the Dystopic mail list? New Readers can sign up for Dystopic HERE
If you have missed a Dystopic News letter, you can find select back copies HERE
