I agree with the spirit of it. I'm doubtful of anyone's commitment to letting nukes loose though (but I fully believe there are warhawks who consider it - IIRC, the "Cuban Missile Crisis" was one such event). As Trump is a mask off version of the status quo, it makes sense he may express openly, or sound like he's expressing, consideration of nukes.

But no matter how deranged the empire gets, setting off nukes in this geopolitical landscape is unprecedented territory. This isn't the US bombing Japan at the end of WWII where the US was the only one who had nukes. If the US uses nukes now, anti-imperialist nuclear powers would be pressured to retaliate (namely: Russia, China). Otherwise, the new precedent is that you can nuke whatever country you want, as long as they can't nuke back. And that sort of precedent in the hands of a declining empire lashing out would mean it starts viewing its nukes as a valid option for blowing up entire peoples.

Nukes in Iran would also not crush Iran or its resistance. It would senselessly mass murder for no real gain. Remaining Iranians would have all the more vicious hatred for the US and double-down on efforts to block the Strait and break the empire economically. Trump would cement himself as an international pariah (his ego clearly doesn't want that).

So although I fully believe those conversations get had because the empire is brutal as hell, it would not be something it can really come back from. I think the greater likelihood is that this is spectacle and it's Trump trying to intimidate, while they focus on a more kidnapping-of-Maduro style of operation.

Either way, I hope the anti-imperialist nuclear powers are having those conversations about what they would do if the US did try to nuke Iran.