Trump's ‘mother of all bombs’ hit on Iran could be a fireworks show

The US military has drawn up plans for a possible strike on Iran using the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, better known as the MOAB or the “mother of all bombs”, CNN reported on Thursday, citing multiple US officials familiar with the discussions. The proposed targets include Iranian energy infrastructure and nuclear sites, including the suspected underground facility at Pickaxe Mountain.

But the weapon’s enormous blast is unlikely to solve the central military problem confronting Donald Trump of how to force Iran into concessions without restarting a prolonged war. A MOAB strike could give the president dramatic images of American firepower and an opportunity to claim victory but whether it would deliver anything resembling a strategic win is another question.

Why Trump may reach for the MOAB

According to CNN, the White House has spent weeks exploring military options that could provide Trump with a “definitive” end to the conflict, at least from a messaging perspective. More than six months of US bombing have failed to produce a negotiated settlement, while Iran has shown little inclination to accept Washington’s demands.


Also Read: Nine ways the Trump administration could interfere with the midterms

Trump is caught between two unattractive choices. Pulling US forces out without a deal could look like an admission of failure, a concern he has reportedly expressed to advisers. Continuing the campaign, meanwhile, risks prolonging an unpopular war as Republicans approach the November midterm elections.

CNN reported that one military planning option involves striking “a lot of energy infrastructure” before a possible withdrawal of US forces from the region. Another includes the MOAB against nuclear targets such as Pickaxe Mountain, where the US and Israel believe Iran has stored components of its nuclear programme.

The logic is that a spectacular strike could allow Trump to announce that the US has inflicted decisive damage, achieved its principal objectives and can now bring troops home. The administration could then present withdrawal as the conclusion of a successful campaign rather than a retreat.

A huge explosion is not a bunker-buster

The MOAB weighs approximately 21,600 pounds, or 9.8 tonnes. Unlike a conventional penetrator designed to burrow through rock or reinforced concrete before detonating, it is an air-blast weapon that explodes above the ground, generating a powerful pressure wave across a wide area.

According to CNN, the bomb can devastate an area equivalent to roughly nine city blocks. It was originally developed for use against large concentrations of troops and equipment, above-ground bunkers and other targets vulnerable to a massive blast.

Its destructive power, however, is not the ability to destroy deeply buried facilities. CNN's sources questioned whether the weapon could penetrate far enough to damage the suspected nuclear installations at Pickaxe Mountain, believed to be protected by layers of granite.

Also Read: ‘Middle powers’ grapple with new survival strategies under Trump era

One source familiar with the military planning discussions described the MOAB to CNN as an “information operation type weapon” suited to clearing large areas rather than penetrating deep underground.

A blast could damage access roads, ventilation systems, surface structures and exposed equipment without necessarily eliminating underground chambers or the nuclear-related material they contain.

If the objective is to ensure that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon, the relevant question is not how spectacular the explosion looks from the air but whether the strike can permanently disable the facilities, equipment and technical capabilities that underpin the programme. There are doubts if a MOAB could accomplish that on its own.

The nuclear problem may survive the spectacle

Pickaxe Mountain presents a particularly difficult challenge because of the suspected depth and geological protection of the facility. A weapon designed to generate a huge surface blast may inflict serious damage around such a site without reaching its most heavily protected sections.

The same problem applies to other underground facilities. Iran's nuclear infrastructure is not a single building that can be destroyed in one attack. It includes multiple sites, specialised equipment, technical personnel and accumulated scientific knowledge. Even severe damage to one location would not automatically eliminate the wider programme.

CNN's account does not establish that the MOAB would be useless against every possible target. Against exposed equipment, surface installations or vulnerable structures, it could cause substantial destruction. But those are different objectives from permanently eliminating a deeply buried nuclear capability.

The choice of weapon therefore risks exposing a mismatch between the political claim and the military result. Trump could announce that an important Iranian nuclear site had been struck, yet the actual condition of its underground facilities might remain uncertain. That would leave the US facing the same question after the bombing -- what additional action, if any, would be required to ensure that Iran's nuclear ambitions had been thwarted?

A weapon built to frighten as much as destroy

The MOAB's psychological value is not an incidental feature. It was conceived during the Iraq War, with US military officials discussing its potential to frighten enemy forces into surrendering or discourage them from fighting. CNN's report says the psychological operations were part of its original purpose.

Trump demonstrated his willingness to use it in April 2017, when he authorised a strike against an ISIS cave complex in Afghanistan. Afghan officials said the attack killed 36 ISIS fighters. It also destroyed three underground tunnels along with weapons and ammunition, according to US and Afghan officials cited by CNN.

Also Read: Trump warns Houthis over attacks on Saudi Arabia, says he will ‘never forget’

That precedent, however, offers limited guidance for Iran. The Afghan target was an ISIS tunnel network, not a suspected nuclear installation protected by layers of granite.

Against Iran, the bomb's principal value could lie in the message it sends. A strike with America's largest conventional bomb would signal that the US is willing to escalate after months of inconclusive fighting. It might frighten Iranian commanders, disrupt calculations in Tehran and create pressure for negotiations.

But intimidation works only if the other side believes further resistance will be more costly than compromise. Iran's leadership could instead interpret the strike as evidence that the US has run out of effective options and is resorting to spectacle. Iran might retaliate against US forces or regional infrastructure rather than concede.

The danger is that a weapon intended to create an exit from the war could trigger another round of escalation.

Energy infrastructure offers a different calculation

The proposed targeting of Iranian energy infrastructure could produce more tangible damage than an unsuccessful attempt to destroy deeply buried nuclear facilities. Energy installations are economically important, and attacks could disrupt production, exports or domestic supplies depending on which facilities were hit.

But even here, the military and political objectives are not necessarily aligned. Damage to energy infrastructure could impose economic costs on Iran, but it would not automatically persuade the Iranian leadership to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or accept Washington's nuclear demands.

CNN has reported that US planners are looking for an off-ramp that could include an agreement to reopen the strategic waterway. The problem is that a strike could complicate precisely the diplomatic breakthrough the US needs. Iran could respond by intensifying pressure on shipping, while the resulting uncertainty pushes up energy prices.

The political consequences would extend beyond the battlefield. High fuel prices and inflation linked to the seven-month conflict are contributing to widespread American dissatisfaction.

The midterm dilemma: Strike, negotiate or walk away?

The November 3 midterms give Trump another reason to seek a quick resolution. Republicans face the prospect of losing congressional seats amid dissatisfaction over the war and its economic consequences. An operation that produces dramatic images and allows Trump to announce that American objectives have been achieved could help him control the political narrative.

But the timing creates a trap. A new attack could drive oil prices higher, provoke Iranian retaliation and make an already unpopular conflict more damaging to Republicans. A limited strike that fails to produce Iranian concessions could leave Trump with the costs of escalation without the benefit of a settlement.

Also Read: Trump's diesel deal with Putin draws criticism from a frustrated Congress

Trump said on October 8 that the US would not resume military strikes before the midterms, citing ongoing discussions with Iran. CNN's report, however, indicates that military planners are preparing options for renewed action both before and after the election. However, that does not prove that Trump has decided to break his public pledge.

Trump's options are narrowing, but they have not disappeared. He could pursue a negotiated arrangement, maintain pressure through existing military deployments or order another round of strikes against selected targets. A much larger campaign involving ground troops remains a far more consequential option, one that CNN's sources said could entail thousands of American casualties. There is no indication in the report that administration officials are advocating such a move.

The MOAB could therefore appeal as a middle course -- a dramatic display of force that stops short of a ground invasion. But its limitations are also what make that option risky. It may devastate exposed targets without destroying the nuclear facilities that Trump has repeatedly vowed to neutralise.

Ultimately, the question is whether the White House wants a military outcome or a politically saleable ending. CNN's sources suggest that planners are struggling to identify an operation that can deliver both. A MOAB strike might offer Trump the spectacle of a decisive blow, but if Iran's nuclear capabilities survive and Iran refuses to yield, the supposed victory could amount to little more than a fireworks show.