Actor John Cusack is once again at the center of controversy — this time for suggesting Iran should acquire nuclear weapons to protect itself from the United States and Israel.
In a recent tweet, Cusack claimed the U.S. and Israel have historically disregarded international law. He argued that, in response, Iran and other nations may see nuclear weapons as the only way to ensure their own safety.
The High Fidelity star added that the Middle East would be safer if no country had nuclear weapons, but said that reality doesn’t reflect the current geopolitical environment. His message clearly stated that Iran would be justified in pursuing nukes as a form of self-defense.
As Fox News reports:
Cusack published his post almost a week after President Donald Trump ordered U.S. military strikes on three major Iranian facilities believed to be developing nuclear weapons.
Long-range B-2 stealth bomber aircraft dropped 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs on the locations on June 21 in an attack that Trump called “a spectacular military success.”
Cusack has been harshly critical of Israel’s actions in its war in Gaza and war with Iran on social media. Prior to posting support for Iran getting nukes, he appeared to suggest that U.S. support for Israel meant the country was supporting a “genocidal” regime.
He wrote, “Blind allegiance for Israel is alliance to a genocidal regeme[sic] – it’s a nation state – run [by] a murderous gangster – not some fixed star.”
The actor’s posts track with his long-standing opposition to U.S. military policy. He’s frequently criticized American intervention abroad and voiced support for the Palestinian cause. Still, this latest message goes further, broaching the idea of nuclear proliferation as a legitimate counterweight to the influence of Western democracies.
The response was swift — and mostly negative.
Critics condemned the post as reckless and dangerous, accusing Cusack of downplaying the risks of allowing extremist regimes — with poor human rights records and ties to fundamentalist religious ideology— to acquire weapons capable of destroying nations. Others warned that advocating for nuclear parity in an already volatile region is a recipe for disaster.
Supporters, though fewer in number, defended Cusack’s comments as a critique of double standards. They pointed to the fact that nations like the U.S., Israel, and others maintain large nuclear arsenals while opposing any similar ambitions from rivals.
But strip away the textbook celebrity narcissism and the preposterous notion of giving a terror state free rein to go nuclear, and what remains is a thorny policy dilemma that has confounded diplomats for decades: how do you pursue disarmament in a world where no nuclear power wants to go first?
Unfortunately, Cusack’s commentary doesn’t offer much in the way of answers.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Iconic American Company Lays Off US Workers — Seeks Foreign Replacements
Sponsored
He has NO CLUE who these people really are and how many Americans they (among other nationalities) they have murdered since they took Iran by force. About 20% of the population that violently rules the other 80% and seeks destruction on any others that oppose them.
Hes Pro Nuclear War