Military planners have drawn up options for strikes against Iran, potentially involving the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb — known as the MOAB — as President Donald Trump seeks a path toward ending an active conflict, though some officials have expressed doubt that any such action would produce results beyond a display of force.
Reporting by a television news outlet indicated that the plans under consideration include deploying the MOAB against energy infrastructure and nuclear facilities in Iran. A source with knowledge of internal Pentagon discussions told reporters that military planners had prepared a range of strike options characterised — by that same source — as primarily symbolic, designed to offer the president an exit from the conflict rather than to advance the war's declared battlefield aims.
Unnamed officials from the United States told a television network that an attack on facilities where Tehran is thought to have stored components of its nuclear programme could take place either before or after the midterm elections. Planning documents obtained by one source describe the operation as timed to occur before any withdrawal of forces from the CENTCOM area of responsibility, a timeline that would allow strikes to be carried out, a declaration of success to follow, and troops to be repositioned out of the region in short order.
Some defence personnel have expressed doubt that the weapon would achieve any meaningful goals. Unnamed sources indicated that while the MOAB can level an area roughly equivalent to nine city blocks, it likely falls short of penetrating deeply enough to reach the underground installations at Pickaxe, which are thought to sit behind layers of granite. One source told a broadcast outlet that the weapon functions well for clearing wide surface areas but was not built as a deep-penetration warhead, and that the president has placed himself in a position where taking some form of action may feel nearly unavoidable.
In the view of one analyst, the weapon's deterrent worth rests largely on the psychological strain it imposes on opposing forces. Aerial bombardment stretching beyond the six-month mark has yet to produce any movement toward a settlement, leaving Republican lawmakers to weigh the potential electoral consequences as next month's vote draws near.
Privately, a number of officials have voiced doubts about whether any workable plan exists at the White House level for bringing the conflict to a close. Though Trump made a public commitment to hold off on new action before the midterms, a number of his advisers have told others privately that they are uncertain whether that pledge will remain intact through Election Day.
Advisories from allied figures pushing for a troop withdrawal have not gained traction with Trump, according to accounts of internal deliberations. He has maintained that taking such a step would amount to an admission of failure.
Some officials within the administration have indicated that a land-based military operation — one that analysts note would likely result in substantial troop casualties — may represent the only path to a thorough defeat of Iran. At present, there are no parties actively advocating for it.
A White House spokesperson chose not to address "sensitive military plans that may or may not exist," adding that the administration holds all available options in reserve to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The deployment of the MOAB in a combat setting has occurred under no other presidency than the current one. A 21,600-pound munition was cleared for deployment against a network of reinforced ISIS tunnels in Afghanistan during Trump's first term in 2017.
According to a statement from local authorities, 36 ISIS combatants were reported dead and three tunnel networks — along with stored weapons and ammunition — were reported destroyed in the strike, with no civilian casualties noted. Following that episode, defence officials were put under scrutiny over whether deploying an explosive device of that scale had been warranted, and one broadcaster noted that a comparable line of questioning would likely arise if such a weapon were directed at Iran.
