President Donald Trump says additional U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities remain possible but has rejected using nuclear weapons, as military planners consider deploying America’s largest conventional bomb against heavily fortified targets.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
President Donald Trump confirmed Thursday, Oct. 15, that the United States could launch additional military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, including the heavily fortified underground complex known as Pickaxe Mountain, while explicitly ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in any renewed operation.
The president’s remarks came amid reports that Pentagon officials have prepared military options involving the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, commonly known as the “mother of all bombs,” against Iranian nuclear and energy infrastructure. The approximately 21,600-pound weapon is the largest conventional bomb in the American arsenal and has been used in combat only once.
During an interview with Newsmax, Trump distinguished the conventional explosive from nuclear weapons while discussing the possibility of further attacks against Iranian targets.
“No, it’s not nuclear at all. This is just an extremely large bomb. It’s like a tiny nuclear bomb. The mother of all bombs is one big bomb, but it’s not nuclear,” Trump said.
The president also rejected the possibility of ordering a nuclear strike against Iran, emphasizing that Washington possesses sufficient conventional military capabilities.
“I wouldn’t use nuclear. We don’t have to. We’re the greatest nuclear power in the world,” Trump said, according to additional reporting on the interview.
Although Trump acknowledged that Pickaxe Mountain remains a potential target, he did not confirm whether he had authorized the use of the MOAB or approved another military operation. He also indicated that deploying American ground forces was not part of his current plans.
The comments followed CNN’s October 14 investigation into Pentagon strike planning, which reported that American military officials had developed options for using the MOAB against Iranian nuclear installations and energy facilities.
According to officials familiar with the discussions, the proposed operations could occur before or after the Nov. 3 U.S. midterm elections if Trump decides to resume combat operations. The plans remain under consideration, and military officials have questioned whether the weapon would effectively accomplish the administration’s objectives.
Pickaxe Mountain has emerged as a particular concern because of reports that Iran may have relocated sensitive nuclear equipment and materials into facilities constructed deep underground.
The installation is believed to be protected by substantial layers of rock, potentially placing critical equipment beyond the reach of certain conventional weapons. American and Israeli intelligence assessments have raised concerns about whether Iran is attempting to preserve or rebuild nuclear capabilities damaged during previous military operations.
The MOAB’s effectiveness against such a facility remains uncertain because it was designed primarily to produce an enormous surface-level blast rather than penetrate deeply buried structures.
Unlike specialized bunker-busting weapons, which rely on hardened casings and delayed detonation to reach underground targets, the GBU-43/B disperses explosive force across a wide area. Its effects can devastate exposed structures and surface installations, but its design limits its ability to destroy facilities protected beneath thick layers of granite.
That distinction has generated disagreement among American military planners about whether deploying the weapon against Pickaxe Mountain would produce meaningful results.
CNN reported that some officials questioned the strategic value of using such a large explosive against targets the bomb might not be capable of reaching. Concerns also included the possibility of civilian casualties, Iranian retaliation and further escalation of the regional conflict.
The October 15 CNN reporting on the Pentagon’s options described continued internal debate over whether additional attacks could help bring the war to a conclusion or instead prolong hostilities without resolving Washington’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.
The GBU-43/B was originally developed in the early 2000s as a large-area conventional weapon capable of delivering substantial explosive force against concentrations of personnel, surface infrastructure and certain fortified positions.
It contains approximately 18,700 pounds of explosive material and is generally delivered using a modified Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft. Its substantial size prevents deployment from conventional fighter aircraft.
The weapon received international attention in April 2017, when the U.S. military used it for the first time in combat against an Islamic State tunnel and cave complex in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province.
That operation, conducted during Trump’s first presidency, targeted militants operating from fortified positions near the Afghan-Pakistani border. American military officials said the strike was intended to destroy tunnel systems and reduce the danger to U.S. and Afghan forces conducting operations in the area.
The potential use of the same weapon against Iran would involve a substantially different military environment, including more advanced air defenses, larger military installations and the possibility of retaliation against American forces and regional allies.
Iran’s nuclear facilities have presented particular challenges for military planners because several important sites are located underground or protected by hardened structures intended to withstand conventional bombardment.
Pickaxe Mountain is among the facilities that have attracted increased attention following reports about the possible relocation of centrifuges and enriched uranium. The precise status of the installation and the extent of any nuclear activities inside it have not been independently established.
The latest military planning follows more than seven months of conflict that began Feb. 28, when U.S. and Israeli forces launched strikes against Iranian targets. Tehran subsequently retaliated against Israel and regional facilities, expanding the confrontation and disrupting security across parts of the Middle East.
Despite repeated military operations, disagreements remain over Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, retain nuclear materials and potentially restore installations damaged during previous strikes.
Trump has maintained that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and has indicated that any decision about renewed military action would be tied to that objective.
The administration is also confronting questions about whether further attacks could produce a lasting military or diplomatic settlement. Iran has continued resisting American demands concerning its nuclear program, while Washington has maintained military forces in the region and preserved options for additional strikes.
The possibility of targeting energy infrastructure introduces further complications. Such facilities support Iran’s domestic economy and export capabilities, and attacks could affect regional energy markets while increasing pressure on Tehran.
Military operations against nuclear sites also raise concerns about the potential release of hazardous materials, although the consequences would depend on the location, facility design and nature of the materials involved.
Trump’s latest remarks clarify one boundary of his administration’s military planning: nuclear weapons are not among the options he says he intends to use against Iran.
However, his refusal to authorize nuclear strikes does not rule out a significant escalation involving conventional forces. The MOAB remains one of several weapons available to American commanders, and the Pentagon continues evaluating possible targets.
For now, the administration has not announced a new operation, identified a timetable for additional strikes or publicly demonstrated that the MOAB could destroy Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities.
The decision remains with Trump as his administration weighs Iran’s remaining nuclear capabilities, the potential consequences of renewed military action and whether additional conventional strikes could advance Washington’s stated objective of preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Original article
Comments