US Weighs Dropping ‘Mother of All Bombs’ on Iran, Applying Brinkmanship to Force Nuclear Renunciation

US conditions for ending the war include reducing Iran’s nuclear capabilities
Preparations for strikes on nuclear and energy facilities aim to force compliance 
Targeting both Iran’s nuclear development infrastructure and its ruling leadership

The United States is considering deploying a massive bomb against Iran’s nuclear facilities and energy infrastructure. Having made a reduction in nuclear capabilities a condition for ending the war, Washington is also preparing additional airstrikes to pressure Iran’s leadership. Israel has likewise repeatedly warned of possible military action, naming both the elimination of the nuclear threat and the collapse of the regime as war objectives. With the war now in its eighth month, the United States and Israel appear intent on weakening the Iranian regime by disabling its nuclear facilities.

Massive US Bomb Takes Aim at Iran’s Underground Nuclear Facilities

According to global military news outlet Army Recognition on the 20th (all dates hereafter are local time), the United States is considering using the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), regarded as one of the most powerful conventional weapons, to disable Iran’s key nuclear facilities and energy infrastructure. Potential targets mentioned include Pickaxe Mountain, a suspected underground nuclear facility, and major oil and energy facilities. The operational concepts reportedly also include attacking Iran before reducing US forces deployed in the Middle East. Responding to inquiries, the US Department of Defense (Department of War) said it was developing plans for a range of operational scenarios to carry out orders from the president and defense secretary.

Known as the “Mother of All Bombs,” the MOAB was developed to use a large quantity of explosives to deliver a powerful blast over a wide area. Specifications released by the US Air Force Armament Museum put its total weight at approximately 9.8 metric tons, including 8.5 metric tons of high explosives. The MOAB is designed to be dropped from a C-130-series transport aircraft and guided toward its target using a system combining satellite navigation and inertial navigation. It was first used in combat in April 2017, during President Trump’s first term, when US forces used it to attack an Islamic State (IS) tunnel complex in Afghanistan.

Pickaxe Mountain, mentioned as a potential target, is an underground facility built in mountainous terrain south of the Natanz nuclear complex. In 2020, Iran announced plans to build an advanced centrifuge assembly facility there. The US-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) has assessed that, based on the estimated size of its underground space, the site could also accommodate a uranium enrichment facility using centrifuges. Satellite images last year showed security barriers around the mountain and work to reinforce tunnel entrances. Additional construction activity around entrances and internal roads has also been detected this year.

Table 1. Key Details on US Consideration of MOAB Use and Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

Trump Warns of Possible Additional Strikes on Underground Nuclear Facilities

President Trump has publicly raised the possibility of an attack on Pickaxe Mountain. Responding to questions about Iran at the White House on the 1st, he reiterated that he would not allow it to possess nuclear weapons. In a Time magazine interview released the same day, he also left open the possibility of resuming bombing against Iran after the November midterm elections. In a Newsmax interview on the 15th, he then mentioned that Iran’s nuclear-related facilities were buried deep beneath a mountain and explicitly named Pickaxe Mountain. He went so far as to claim that the facility could be attacked and swiftly disabled, signaling his willingness to take military action against the infrastructure supporting nuclear weapons development.

Measures that would substantially reduce Iran’s nuclear capabilities are also being presented as a central US demand in negotiations to end the war. In an interview with Reuters earlier this month, US Vice President JD Vance said Iran would have to meaningfully reduce its uranium enrichment capacity for the war to end. Asking why Iran needed uranium enriched to 60% if it had no intention of making nuclear weapons, he presented a halt to highly enriched uranium production as a step that would demonstrate a willingness to abandon nuclear weapons development. Measures Washington has demanded also include destroying or removing stockpiles of highly enriched uranium that could be used to make nuclear weapons. Vance made clear that an agreement could not be reached solely on promises to scale back future nuclear activities and that concrete nuclear concessions would be needed during negotiations.

US Demands Tangible Nuclear Reductions as Iran Weighs Regime Survival

The US decision to make a reduction in nuclear capabilities a condition for ending the war reflects a calculation that it must secure results commensurate with the enormous costs of the conflict. According to estimates released last month by the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the United States had spent USD 38 billion (approximately USD 38.7 billion) on the war with Iran as of August 1. If the war continues, it is projected to cost up to an additional USD 3 billion (approximately USD 3.06 billion) each month, while replenishing depleted ammunition stocks could take years. As fiscal spending and the consumption of military supplies accumulate, weakening the infrastructure supporting nuclear weapons development could help justify the war effort. The combination of demands for nuclear concessions and preparations for additional strikes is interpreted as signaling a determination not to end the war without resolving the nuclear issue.

Indeed, the more the United States pressures Iran to renounce its nuclear ambitions, the more complex the calculations Iran’s leadership faces over regime stability become. Giving up the infrastructure for nuclear development could trigger criticism from within the power structure that it had capitulated to US pressure. Immediately after the airstrikes in June last year, Iranian hard-liners attacked advocates of negotiations, portraying talks with the United States as a “strategic trap” that had undermined the military’s readiness. At the time, Alex Vatanka, a scholar at the US-based Middle East Institute, assessed that a return to negotiations without swift reciprocal US measures could intensify hard-line opposition and divisions within the leadership. This year, arguments that nuclear weapons are necessary for regime survival have gained traction, with some hard-liners openly calling for withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the development of nuclear weapons.

Libya Secured Sanctions Relief by Abandoning Nuclear Development, but Its Regime Collapsed 8 Years Later

The perception that abandoning nuclear ambitions could jeopardize a regime’s security hardened in the wake of Libya’s experience. In 2003, then-Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi agreed after negotiations with the United States and Britain to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction programs, including nuclear development. Libya subsequently began implementing the agreement by shipping nuclear-related equipment and long-range missiles to the United States and accepting international inspections. The United States and Europe also eased sanctions, accelerating the normalization of relations with the West. In 2004, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Libya for talks with Gaddafi, illustrating Libya’s changed standing as it emerged from prolonged isolation.

But improved relations with the West did not guarantee the Gaddafi regime’s long-term security. In 2011, 8 years after the nuclear dismantlement agreement, the Arab Spring’s anti-government protests spread to Libya and escalated into civil war amid the regime’s bloody crackdown. Military intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bolstered the rebels, and Gaddafi’s regime eventually collapsed. Gaddafi himself was captured by rebels and killed that same year, ending his 42-year rule. Although abandoning nuclear development brought sanctions relief and normalized relations, it did not guarantee the regime’s survival amid the subsequent civil war and outside military intervention. For Iran’s leadership, this is a precedent that could reasonably fuel concern that even an agreement with the West to dismantle its nuclear program would not eliminate the risk of future military intervention or regime collapse.

Disabling Nuclear Facilities While Applying Economic Pressure to Weaken Iran’s Leadership

The regime collapse feared by Iran’s leadership is also an openly declared Israeli war objective. Unveiling a new national security vision on the 18th, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu identified a nuclear-armed Iran as the greatest security threat and said Israel was prepared to launch a preemptive strike without US support if necessary. He also raised the possibility that the Iranian regime could rebuild its nuclear and unconventional weapons programs and its support network for regional proxies. This reflects the view that even after the infrastructure for nuclear development is destroyed, the threat could reemerge if the current leadership remains in place. Claiming that “90% of the mission is complete,” he disclosed that he had instructed all security agencies to bring down the Iranian regime.

Preparations for additional military operations to support that objective are also underway. The US Department of Defense reportedly instructed Central Command earlier this month to finalize preparations for a possible resumption of large-scale combat against Iran. Operations considered at the time included massive airstrikes on nuclear facilities and energy infrastructure. The plan is seen as an attempt to weaken nuclear development capabilities while also striking the economic foundations that sustain the regime. President Trump also warned on the 18th that he would “finish the job soon” unless Iran quickly changed its stance, citing military and financial damage. Netanyahu responded that they would “complete the mission together.”

The two leaders’ remarks signaling additional strikes suggest a strategic expectation that, after a prolonged war, both Iran’s nuclear development capabilities and its ruling leadership can be weakened. Although President Trump initially estimated shortly after the outbreak of war that operations would last 4–5 weeks, the conflict that began in late February is now in its eighth month. From the early stages of the war, he pointed to the operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January as a future model for Iran, signaling an intention to translate military gains into a reconfiguration of political power. At the time, officials within the US administration also discussed finding a figure within Iran who would accept US demands and oversee a transfer of power, much like acting President Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed power after Maduro’s ouster. Netanyahu’s recent repeated calls for regime collapse, citing the possibility of Iran rebuilding its nuclear and military capabilities, can also be viewed in this context. The strategy is interpreted as an attempt to bring about changes within Iran’s power structure by disabling the infrastructure for nuclear development and maintaining military and economic pressure.