Trump Threatens Iran With ‘Mother of All Bombs’ Amid Nuclear Tensions

Trump has threatened to destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facility known as Pickaxe Mountain, but has not confirmed whether he has authorised the use of the bomb.

Iranian officials and hardline commentators have dismissed the threat, arguing that no bomb can intimidate a nation with an ancient civilisation and a long history.

Figures close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have described the threat as psychological pressure. However, some Iranian voices have warned that attacks on energy infrastructure or underground facilities could cause civilian casualties and widespread destruction, with consequences extending across the region.

What Has Trump Threatened Iran With?

In an interview with US broadcaster Newsmax on October 15, Trump said Washington might have to target Pickaxe Mountain, an underground facility near Iran’s Natanz nuclear complex. The site is suspected of being linked to nuclear activities.

“We’ll destroy it very quickly,” Trump said. He ruled out sending ground troops for the operation and said the United States would not use nuclear weapons. Referring to the Mother of All Bombs, he described it as a very large bomb but not a nuclear weapon.

Before Trump’s remarks, CNN reported that the US military had developed new plans for strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and energy infrastructure, potentially including the use of the MOAB.

Trump, however, did not confirm whether he had approved the weapon’s use.

How Destructive Is the Mother of All Bombs?

According to publicly available information, the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb weighs around 21,000 pounds (9.5 tonnes) and contains approximately 18,700 pounds of explosive material.

The bomb uses GPS guidance to reach its target and produces a powerful blast wave capable of causing extensive destruction across a wide area. However, its casing is designed to maximise the force of the explosion rather than penetrate deep underground.

The weapon was first and, so far, only used operationally in April 2017, when the United States targeted a tunnel complex used by the Islamic State militant group in Afghanistan.

Its effectiveness against Pickaxe Mountain in central Iran remains uncertain. The facility is believed to extend at least 100 metres underground, although its exact purpose, internal structure and current operational status remain largely secret.

The MOAB could potentially damage underground structures through entrances or ventilation tunnels, but it was not designed to penetrate deep layers of rock.

The United States also possesses a specialised weapon designed to destroy heavily protected underground targets, known as the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator. Weighing 30,000 pounds, it is commonly referred to as a bunker buster and is designed to penetrate deep into the ground before detonating.

A recent analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that the United States had 10 MOAB bombs remaining. The analysis also said that 14 GBU-57 bombs had been used during US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025, reducing the available stock of these deep-penetrating weapons.

Is the Threat About Military Success or Political Pressure?

Trump’s statements and reports of US military planning raise questions about Washington’s objectives.

One possibility is that the weapon’s significance lies not only in its destructive power but also in its psychological impact. A large, highly visible strike could demonstrate US military strength, signal that Washington has further options available and allow Trump to present an attack as a decisive final blow before declaring an end to the conflict.

However, destroying a target above ground does not necessarily eliminate the capabilities contained within it. Even extensive damage to a nuclear facility would not automatically erase the scientific expertise, equipment and materials underpinning Iran’s nuclear programme.

The timing of the threat is also significant. According to CNN, US military planners have considered the possibility of launching further attacks on Iran before or after the November midterm elections. Trump has publicly said he would not launch additional attacks before the elections.

The threat could therefore serve several purposes simultaneously: maintaining military pressure on Tehran, signalling to American voters that the president is prepared to act and keeping the possibility of a new attack open without making a final decision.

Iran’s Response

Iran’s military leadership has repeatedly said the country is prepared to respond if war resumes.

On October 15, IRGC deputy commander Major General Mostafa Izadi said the armed forces were ready to confront any adversary on land, at sea and in the air.

Such statements reflect Iran’s public position that it will not yield to pressure. However, they do not establish how Tehran would respond to a MOAB strike.

An attack on energy infrastructure or a sensitive nuclear facility could increase the risk of retaliation, potentially threatening maritime traffic and causing further disruption across the region.

Iranian officials and commentators have responded to Trump’s threat with strong criticism, ridicule and warnings about the possible consequences of another US attack.

Ibrahim Azizi, head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee and a hardline lawmaker, rejected the suggestion that the weapon could intimidate Iran.

In an interview with the parliamentary news agency ICANA on October 16, he said: “No one has yet been born who can threaten a great nation, its civilisation, history and ancient heritage with a bomb called the Mother of All Bombs.”

Hasan Khoshcheshm, an ultraconservative commentator on Iranian state television, adopted an even more confrontational tone before Trump’s latest threat.

“If America has the mother of bombs, we have the father of bombs,” he said, without specifying which weapons he claimed Iran possessed.

The IRGC-aligned Telegram channel Nezami Tarin also sought to downplay the threat. It reminded its audience that the United States had already used more powerful bunker-buster bombs during its June 2025 attack on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility.

“This is nothing new, but this time our response will be different,” the channel said in a post.

Hardline journalist Abdollah Ganji also criticised Washington in a post on X, writing that “the United States can do nothing except target people’s lives.”

He said such an action would achieve no meaningful success and would be morally reprehensible in the eyes of the international community. He also suggested that Iran had prepared its nuclear and missile facilities to withstand attacks of this kind.

These statements indicate that pro-government voices in Iran are portraying the US threat as psychological pressure while seeking to project confidence that the country could withstand such an attack. They argue that a strike would fail to deliver a decisive blow.

However, some voices have also highlighted the weapon’s destructive potential and the risk of civilian casualties. Some social media users have appealed to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to pursue urgent diplomatic measures before an attack triggers a humanitarian crisis.

Former Iranian lawmaker Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh has focused particularly on the potential human and economic costs.

In a post on X, he warned that the consequences of a powerful strike against underground facilities would not be limited to the installations themselves.

“Destruction will not be confined to the facilities located underground,” he said. Falahatpisheh warned that damage to energy infrastructure and civilian deaths could create a situation that would be difficult to control.

He urged Iranian officials to request an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council and seek the application of the Geneva Conventions.