U.S. conditions for ending war include reducing Iran's nuclear capabilities
Preparations for strikes on nuclear and energy facilities seek to enforce demands 
Targeting both Iran's nuclear development infrastructure and its ruling establishment

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 appears to be pressuring Iran's leadership by preparing additional airstrikes. Israel has also repeatedly warned of possible military action, identifying both the elimination of the nuclear threat and regime collapse as war objectives. With the war now in its eighth month, the United States and Israel appear to be seeking to weaken the Iranian regime by disabling its nuclear facilities.

Massive U.S. 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. Operational concepts reportedly also include attacking Iran before reducing U.S. forces deployed in the Middle East. In response to related inquiries, the U.S. Department of Defense (Department of War) said it was developing plans for various operational contingencies to carry out instructions from the president and defense secretary.

Known as the 'Mother of All Bombs,' the MOAB was developed to use a large explosive payload to deliver a powerful blast over a wide area. According to specifications released by the U.S. Air Force Armament Museum, it weighs approximately 9.8 metric tons in total, 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 by a system combining satellite and inertial navigation. It was first used in combat in April 2017, during President Trump's first term, when U.S. forces used it to attack an Islamic State (IS) tunnel complex in Afghanistan.

Pickaxe Mountain, which has been mentioned as a potential target, is an underground facility built in mountainous terrain south of the Natanz nuclear facility. In 2020, Iran announced plans to build an advanced centrifuge assembly facility there. Based on the estimated size of the underground space, the U.S.-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) has assessed that it 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, while further construction activity around entrances and internal roads has been detected this year.

Table 1. Key details on U.S. consideration of MOAB use and Iran's nuclear facilities

Trump warns of possible further strikes on underground nuclear facilities

President Trump has publicly raised the possibility of attacking Pickaxe Mountain. Responding to a question 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 published the same day, he also left open the possibility of resuming bombing against Iran after the November midterm elections. In a subsequent Newsmax interview on the 15th, he mentioned that Iran's nuclear-related facilities were buried deep beneath a mountain and specifically named Pickaxe Mountain. He went so far as to claim that the facility could be attacked and quickly disabled, signaling his willingness to take military action against the infrastructure underpinning nuclear weapons development.

Measures to substantially reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities are also a central U.S. demand in negotiations to end the war. In an interview with Reuters early this month, U.S. Vice President JD Vance said Iran would have to meaningfully reduce its uranium enrichment capability to end the war. Questioning 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 measure that would demonstrate its willingness to abandon nuclear weapons development. U.S. demands have also included the disposal or removal of stockpiles of highly enriched uranium that could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. Vance made clear that a deal could not be reached merely on promises to reduce future nuclear activity and that concrete nuclear concessions would be needed during negotiations.

U.S. demands tangible reductions in nuclear capabilities as Iran weighs regime survival

Behind Washington's decision to make a reduction in nuclear capabilities a condition for ending the war is a calculation that it must secure results commensurate with the enormous cost of the conflict. According to estimates released last month by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the United States had spent USD 38 billion (approximately USD 38.7 billion) on the Iran war 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. With fiscal spending and military supply consumption mounting, successfully weakening the infrastructure for nuclear weapons development could bolster the justification for waging the war. The simultaneous pursuit of nuclear concessions and preparations for further strikes is interpreted as signaling a determination not to end the war without resolving the nuclear issue.

Indeed, the more Washington pressures Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, the more its leadership faces complex calculations over regime stability. Giving up the infrastructure for nuclear development could provoke criticism from within the ruling establishment that it had capitulated to U.S. pressure. Immediately after the airstrikes in June last year, Iranian hardliners attacked advocates of negotiations, denouncing talks with the United States as a 'strategic trap' that had undermined the military's readiness. At the time, Alex Vatanka, a researcher at the U.S.-based Middle East Institute, assessed that returning to negotiations without swift reciprocal U.S. measures could intensify hardline resistance and divisions within the leadership. This year, arguments that nuclear armament is necessary for regime survival have gained traction, with some hardliners openly calling for withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the development of nuclear weapons.

Libya secured sanctions relief by abandoning nuclear program, but its regime fell 8 years later

The perception that abandoning nuclear ambitions could jeopardize a regime's security was reinforced by Libya's experience. In 2003, Libya's then-leader Muammar Gaddafi agreed after negotiations with the United States and Britain to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs, including nuclear development. Libya then 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, and normalization of relations with the West gathered pace. In 2004, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Libya for talks with Gaddafi, illustrating the country'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 ensuing civil war and foreign military intervention. For Iran's leadership, this is a precedent that could justify wariness that even an agreement with the West on nuclear dismantlement would not eliminate the risk of future military intervention or regime collapse.

Disabling nuclear facilities alongside economic pressure aims 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 concept 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 attack without U.S. support if necessary. He also raised the possibility that the Iranian regime could rebuild its nuclear and unconventional weapons programs and its network of support for regional proxies. This reflects a 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 those objectives are also underway. The U.S. Defense Department reportedly instructed Central Command early this month to finalize preparations for a possible resumption of large-scale combat against Iran. Operations considered at the time included large-scale airstrikes on nuclear facilities and energy infrastructure. The plan is interpreted as an effort to weaken nuclear development capabilities while also striking the economic foundations sustaining the regime. On the 18th, President Trump also warned that he would 'finish the job soon' unless Iran quickly changed its stance, citing military and financial damage. Netanyahu responded, 'We will complete the mission together.'

The two leaders' remarks signaling further strikes suggest a strategic expectation of weakening both Iran's nuclear development capabilities and its ruling establishment after a protracted war. President Trump initially projected an operation lasting 4–5 weeks shortly after hostilities began, but the war, which started in late February, is now in its eighth month. From the outset, he cited the operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January as a future model for Iran, hinting at plans to translate military gains into a restructuring of power. At the time, U.S. administration officials also discussed finding an Iranian insider who could accept U.S. demands while overseeing a transfer of power, like acting President Delcy Rodríguez, who took over after Maduro's ouster. Netanyahu's recent repeated calls for regime collapse, citing the possibility of rebuilding nuclear and military capabilities, can also be viewed in this context. The concept is interpreted as seeking to bring about changes within Iran's power structure by disabling its nuclear development infrastructure and maintaining military and economic pressure.