Iranian media outlets are debating whether the bomb’s destructive power would be sufficient to destroy the country’s deepest underground nuclear facilities. Iranian officials have responded forcefully to US President Donald Trump’s threat, insisting that such a weapon would have little effect on Iran. Meanwhile, some commentators have warned that an attack could have devastating consequences for civilians and prompt further Iranian strikes.
With the US midterm elections approaching, questions are also emerging over whether the threat signals preparations for renewed military action or is primarily intended to pressure Iran and project the image of a decisive victory that could help Trump secure a win for his Republican Party.
In an interview with US broadcaster Newsmax on October 15, Trump said the United States might have to strike Pickaxe Mountain, located near Iran’s Natanz nuclear complex. The site, situated beneath the ground in central Iran, is suspected of housing an underground facility linked to nuclear activities.
“We’ll destroy it very quickly,” Trump said. He ruled out deploying ground troops and stressed that he would not use nuclear weapons. Referring to the Mother of All Bombs, he said, “It’s a very big bomb, but it’s not a nuclear bomb.”
Trump’s remarks followed a CNN report that the US military had drawn up new attack plans. These reportedly included the possible use of the Mother of All Bombs against Iranian nuclear facilities and energy infrastructure. However, Trump did not confirm whether he had authorised the weapon’s use.
According to publicly available information, the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or MOAB, weighs approximately 21,000 pounds, equivalent to 9.5 tonnes, and contains around 18,700 pounds of explosives.
The GPS-guided weapon produces an extremely powerful blast wave across a large area. However, its outer casing is relatively thin because the bomb is designed to maximise the effects of an explosion over a broad area rather than penetrate deep underground.
The weapon was first, and so far only, used in a military operation in April 2017, when it was deployed against a tunnel complex belonging to the extremist group Islamic State (IS) in Afghanistan.
The suspected facility at Pickaxe Mountain is believed to extend at least 100 metres underground. It remains unclear how effective the MOAB would be against the site, partly because its actual purpose, internal layout and current condition remain largely classified.
A MOAB explosion could damage underground structures through their entrances or ventilation shafts. However, the weapon was not designed to penetrate rock and reach deep underground facilities directly.
The United States also possesses a specialised weapon for attacking heavily fortified underground sites: the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, commonly known as a bunker-buster. It is designed to penetrate deep into the ground before detonating.
According to a recent analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the United States has approximately 10 MOAB bombs remaining. The analysis also stated that 14 GBU-57 bombs were used against Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025, reducing the US stockpile of those weapons to fewer than five.
Trump’s statements and the reported military plans raise a broader question about what Washington ultimately hopes to achieve.
One possibility is that the weapon’s significance lies partly in its psychological impact. A large-scale strike could demonstrate American military power and signal that Washington still has several options available. Trump could then present a potential attack as a decisive final blow and announce the end of the war.
However, destroying a facility above ground and completely eliminating underground capabilities are two different objectives.
Even if a nuclear facility suffered extensive damage, the scientific knowledge, equipment or materials associated with Iran’s nuclear programme would not automatically disappear.
The timing of the threat is also significant. According to CNN, US military planners have considered options for renewed attacks either before or after the November midterm elections. Trump, however, has publicly stated that he would not launch another attack before the elections.
The threat could therefore serve several purposes simultaneously: maintaining military pressure on Iran, signalling to the American public that the administration remains firm in its position, and keeping the option of further military action open without committing to an attack.
Iran’s military leadership has repeatedly said that the country is prepared for renewed conflict. On October 15, Major General Mostafa Izadi, deputy commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said Iran’s military was ready to confront any enemy on land, at sea and in the air.
Such statements indicate that Tehran is publicly unwilling to yield to pressure. They do not, however, establish how Iran would respond if the United States used a MOAB against its territory.
An attack on energy infrastructure or a sensitive nuclear facility could increase the risk of retaliation. It could also threaten maritime traffic and further destabilise the wider region.
Iranian officials and commentators have responded to Trump’s threat in different ways. Some have adopted a hard-line position, others have mocked the weapon, while some have warned about the consequences of another American attack.
Ibrahim Azizi, a hard-line lawmaker and chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, dismissed the suggestion that the weapon could intimidate Iran.
In an interview with the parliamentary news agency ICANA on October 16, he said, “To this day, no one has been born who can threaten a great country with civilisation, history and an ancient heritage with a bomb called the ‘Mother of All Bombs’.”
Hassan Khoshcheshm, a hard-line analyst who appears on Iranian state television, had made an even sharper remark on a talk show before Trump’s latest warning.
“If America has the Mother of All Bombs, we have the Father of All Bombs,” he said. He did not identify the weapons he was referring to or explain which systems Iran possessed that might correspond to that description.
Similarly, the IRGC-supporting Telegram channel Nezamitreen played down the MOAB threat. It reminded its audience that the United States had already used bunker-buster bombs more powerful than the MOAB during its attack on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility in June 2025.
“There is nothing new about this, but this time our response will be different,” the channel said in a post.
Hard-line journalist Abdullah Ganji also criticised the threat in a post on X.
“America can do nothing except target people’s lives. Such an action will not achieve any victory for it and will be morally reprehensible in the eyes of the world,” he wrote.
He also claimed that Iran had prepared its nuclear and missile facilities to withstand such attacks.
These statements reflect efforts by voices supportive of Iran’s leadership to portray the threat as an attempt at psychological pressure. They also convey confidence that Iran could withstand a MOAB strike and that such an attack would not produce a decisive outcome.
However, other voices have warned about the weapon’s destructive potential.
Some social media users have appealed to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to initiate urgent diplomatic efforts before an attack triggers a humanitarian catastrophe.
Former lawmaker Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh has specifically highlighted the potential damage to civilians and the economy. In a post on X, he warned that the consequences of a powerful strike against underground facilities would not remain confined beneath the ground.
Falahatpisheh cautioned that damage to energy infrastructure and civilian deaths could produce consequences that would be difficult to control. He urged Iranian representatives to seek an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council and called for the Geneva Conventions to be invoked.
The dispute over the Mother of All Bombs therefore extends beyond the weapon’s explosive power. While Washington’s reported plans have intensified speculation about another strike, uncertainty remains over whether the bomb could neutralise Iran’s deepest underground facilities, what strategic gains an attack might deliver and how Tehran would retaliate. The potential consequences for civilians, energy infrastructure and regional stability remain central to the debat
About The Author
Comment List