Tactical nuclear weapons are intended to achieve a tactical effect within the battlespace. In which battlespace would the US benefit from the employment of a tactical nuclear weapon? Is the US bogged down on some middle eastern front where one of these weapons would break a stalemate? Not that I'm aware of. Which means that the only real effect of employment of said weapon would be cognitive. Which leads to the logical conclusion that the cognitive effect would be the desired effect. Which really means that the simple threat of the use of this weapon achieves the actual applied effect.

Hamas is on the ropes. Their strategy had been to play the long game in the hopes that the international community would eventually pressure Israel to cede Hamas power and influence. That play failed. Hezbollah and Iran have been emasculated. Protesters on Ivy league campuses will not enable them to achieve their strategic objectives. The only rational hand Hamas has left to play is the one where they fold.

I think Trump's threats are real, not so much in the threat of nuke weapon employment, but that that the Islamic resistance will no longer be able to retreat to Dubai or Doha and live without the threat of being smoked by a drone or assassin. That may be the paradigm change that breaks the back of the Islamic resistance.

And that's a good thing. 80 years ago, Germany and Japan were both rules buy vile extremists. Those regimes were defeated through the execution of extreme violence, yet today, those countries represent two of the most powerful economies on the planet. Hopefully someday, Palestine will be the model of modernity. But it won't happen until the extremists learn that their objectives will only get them killed. That there is no hope for them or their agenda. That their only route to prosperity and peace is through compromise.