A bombshell nuke attack claim exposes the trap Trump faces in Iran

The 60-day deadline for a broader US-Iran agreement has come and gone without a breakthrough. President Donald Trump is now publicly talking about surrender rather than compromise. "They should put up the white flag of surrender," Trump told Fox News, confirming reports of the IRGC backchannel talks that bypass mediators and Iranian political officials, though IRGC refuted his claim.

Trump also reiterated that America's top goal in the Iran war is preventing the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon. “The number one Goal is, and always will be, that Iran cannot have, in any way, shape, or form, a Nuclear Weapon. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Monday morning. Iran, meanwhile, is signalling that it is prepared for a longer confrontation and is showing little sign of accepting Washington's demands.

Against that backdrop, a provocative claim by former Congresswoman and once a Trump ally Marjorie Taylor Greene can ignite debate over an issue that has largely remained on the fringes of public discussion -- whether any military option short of a nuclear weapon can actually destroy Iran's deepest nuclear facilities. The question is not whether the US is likely to use a nuclear weapon. There is no clear evidence so far that such a decision is being considered. The question is whether, from a purely military standpoint, a nuclear earth-penetrating strike would be the only option for the US against a target like Pickaxe Mountain under which Iran has buried its nuclear infrastructure.


Also Read | Trump threatens to 'bomb' Oman if they get in way of Hormuz deal

Greene's bombshell nuclear claim

In a post on X on Sunday, Greene claimed that Trump administration officials are discussing the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran. She wrote: "They are discussing using nuclear weapons on Iran in strategy meetings. Yes you read that correctly. It's real. I'm not speculating, I know." Greene described such discussions as "pure evil" and warned that lowering the nuclear threshold could lead to a much wider catastrophe.

The White House has not publicly confirmed any such discussions. In fact, there is no reporting so far indicating that the administration is actively considering the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. The claim remains unverified. However, Greene's remarks land at a moment when Trump's options appear increasingly constrained.

A war that looks like a stalemate

The US entered the conflict promising that military pressure and economic coercion would force Tehran to back down. Instead, Iran has demonstrated a capacity to absorb punishment while continuing to impose costs on the United States and its regional partners.

Iran continues to exert influence over traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Shipping disruptions have pushed up energy prices and created political pressure on Washington. Negotiations involving Oman have yet to produce a durable arrangement. Both sides are now trading increasingly maximalist demands.

As several analysts have noted, none of Trump's remaining options appears particularly attractive. A ground invasion of Iran would likely involve enormous costs and casualties. Further economic pressure may not change Tehran's calculations. Additional conventional bombing could damage infrastructure but may not eliminate the nuclear programme itself.

That brings attention back to the facilities buried beneath Iran's mountains.

Also Read | The 60-day deadline for an Iran peace deal is expiring. Here's where things stand

The Pickaxe problem

The most important military question facing Washington is not whether it can bomb Iran. It is whether it can at all destroy Iran's most protected nuclear infrastructure.

Pickaxe Mountain has become a major focus of American concern. Located near Natanz, the facility is believed to contain deeply buried tunnel complexes that may be beyond the reach of even the most powerful conventional bunker-buster bombs in the US arsenal. Experts describe it as one of the most heavily protected sites associated with Iran's nuclear programme.

Trump himself has repeatedly threatened to strike the site. Axios reported in July that he openly vowed the US would bomb Pickaxe Mountain and indicated that he was prepared to escalate rather than pursue another ceasefire. He made similar remarks later too. However, experts have pointed to uncertainty over whether existing US weapons can penetrate the mountain deeply enough to destroy what lies inside.

The problem is not merely depth. It is also geology, tunnel design and redundancy. Even a successful strike could collapse entrances and damage infrastructure without necessarily destroying centrifuges, equipment or enrichment capability hidden further underground.

Last year's Fordow revelation

This is where an important report from last year becomes relevant. In June 2025, The Guardian reported that Pentagon officials had privately debated the effectiveness of conventional bunker-buster bombs against Fordow, another deeply buried Iranian nuclear facility.

According to the report, some officials who received briefings were told that conventional attacks might not penetrate deeply enough to completely destroy the site. The report claimed discussions within the defence establishment included assessments that only a tactical nuclear weapon might be capable of fully eliminating Fordow because of its depth. However, The Guardian also reported that Trump was not considering the use of a tactical nuclear weapon and that the option was not presented to him by senior military leaders.

Nevertheless, the claims made in the report were significant because they showed that the military could have at least examined the theoretical limits of conventional weapons against hardened underground targets. The assessments cited in the article suggested that conventional bombs might collapse tunnels and bury facilities under rubble but not necessarily destroy them permanently.

The relevance to Pickaxe Mountain is obvious. If Fordow raised questions about the limits of conventional bombing, Pickaxe Mountain appears to present an even greater challenge.

The nuke question

From a purely technical perspective, a nuclear earth-penetrating weapon would almost certainly have greater destructive potential against deeply buried facilities than any conventional bomb currently available.

Conventional bunker-busters rely on kinetic energy and explosive force after penetration. Their effectiveness falls sharply as depth and geological protection increase. A nuclear earth penetrator, by contrast, would combine penetration with an underground nuclear detonation capable of generating far greater shockwaves through surrounding rock.

That does not mean such a strike would vaporise an entire mountain or guarantee complete destruction. Military analysts have long debated the effectiveness of nuclear earth penetrators against hardened targets. But there is little doubt that they would have a higher probability of destroying deeply buried infrastructure than conventional bombs.

The debate, therefore, is not really about military effectiveness. It is about political consequences.

From the frying pan into the fire

The nuke option, if exercised, could create a far bigger crisis than the war itself. Even if a nuclear strike offered the most effective way to destroy a site like Pickaxe Mountain, it could create problems vastly larger than the Iranian nuclear challenge.

The US has not used a nuclear weapon since 1945. Any use of a tactical nuclear weapon, regardless of yield, would shatter a nearly eight-decade-old taboo. It would trigger a global political shock, invite severe diplomatic fallout and likely accelerate nuclear proliferation elsewhere. Countries that currently rely on international norms and deterrence arrangements could conclude that they need their own nuclear arsenals.

The military consequences would also be unpredictable. Iran could respond through regional proxies, attacks on American assets or escalation across multiple theatres. US allies might support destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure but would recoil from the precedent created by nuclear use.

For Trump personally, the political risks could be enormous. A president who entered office promising strength and deterrence could instead become associated with a decision that reshaped global nuclear norms for generations.

The trap facing Trump

Greene's post should not be treated as evidence that the US is preparing to use nuclear weapons. There is no public evidence supporting that conclusion. But her comments have highlighted a genuine strategic dilemma.

Trump insists that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon, and still continues to frame that objective as the central purpose of the conflict.

But if facilities such as Pickaxe Mountain are genuinely beyond the reach of conventional weapons, achieving that objective becomes far more complicated. A ground invasion looks prohibitively costly. Economic pressure has limits. Conventional bombing may not permanently eliminate the most hardened sites. The military logic behind more extreme options may be easier to understand but the political logic remains overwhelmingly against them.

That is why the most important takeaway from the current debate is not that Washington is moving toward nuclear use but that Trump's menu of effective military options is as narrow as the depth of Iran's buried nuclear infrastructure.

The challenge facing Trump is no longer simply how to pressure Iran but how to do so without creating a crisis even larger than the one he is trying to solve.