US Faces Dire Choice to Crush Iran’s Nuclear Site

Written by Rebecca Larson.

The Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has raised alarms about the formidable challenge of neutralizing Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, a deeply buried complex that may require extreme measures to destroy. According to recent briefings, conventional weaponry may prove insufficient, prompting discussions of a nuclear option—an unprecedented step with profound implications. This article examines the strategic, technical, and diplomatic dimensions of the issue, shedding light on the complexities of addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Technical Challenges of Targeting Fordow

Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, embedded deep within a mountain in Qom province, presents a unique obstacle for military planners. The DTRA has informed U.S. officials that the site’s fortifications render it impervious to even the most powerful conventional munitions, such as the 30,000-pound GBU-57 bunker-busting bomb. These massive ordnance penetrators, designed to destroy hardened targets, would likely only collapse access tunnels and bury the facility under debris, leaving its core operations intact.

To achieve complete destruction, the DTRA suggests a two-phase approach: first, deploying conventional bombs to weaken the surrounding terrain, followed by a tactical nuclear weapon delivered by a B2 stealth bomber. This nuclear option, while theoretically capable of obliterating the facility, introduces significant risks, including radioactive fallout and regional destabilization. The briefing underscores the extraordinary engineering of Fordow, which was constructed to withstand all but the most catastrophic attacks, reflecting Iran’s strategic foresight in safeguarding its nuclear program.

The technical assessment highlights a broader challenge in modern warfare: the difficulty of neutralizing deeply buried, hardened targets. Advances in tunneling and fortification technologies have outpaced the development of conventional munitions, forcing military strategists to consider escalatory measures. For the U.S., the reliance on nuclear weapons to achieve a military objective would mark a significant departure from post-Cold War norms, raising questions about proportionality and long-term consequences.

Strategic and Diplomatic Context

The debate over Fordow occurs against a backdrop of heightened tensions between the U.S., Israel, and Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has intensified pressure on the U.S. to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, citing concerns that Tehran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. However, both U.S. intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have consistently found no evidence that Iran has decided to develop a nuclear bomb, contradicting Israel’s claims. This discrepancy complicates the justification for military action, as the absence of a clear and imminent threat undermines the case for preemptive strikes.

President Donald Trump has expressed skepticism about the efficacy of conventional GBU-57 bombs against Fordow, aligning with the DTRA’s assessment. While Trump has not endorsed the nuclear option, he has indicated a decision on potential U.S. airstrikes will be made soon, possibly within days. Israel, lacking the capability to destroy Fordow independently, has urged the U.S. to act, highlighting the asymmetry in military capacities between the two allies. The urgency of Israel’s request stems from its perception of Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat, a view that has driven its aggressive posture in the region.

Diplomatically, the prospect of U.S. military action—particularly involving nuclear weapons—risks alienating allies and escalating tensions with other global powers, such as Russia and China, which maintain strategic ties with Iran. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or Iran nuclear deal, was intended to curb Iran’s nuclear activities through inspections and limitations, but its collapse in 2018 under the Trump administration has left few diplomatic avenues for de-escalation. Iran’s subsequent expansion of its nuclear program, including increased uranium enrichment at Fordow, has further complicated efforts to revive negotiations.

The regional dynamics add another layer of complexity. Iran’s alliances with non-state actors, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and militias in Iraq, could trigger retaliatory attacks across the Middle East if the U.S. or Israel strikes Fordow. Such a scenario could spiral into a broader conflict, drawing in additional actors and disrupting global energy markets, given Iran’s proximity to critical oil routes like the Strait of Hormuz.

Ethical and Humanitarian Considerations

The contemplation of a nuclear strike on Fordow raises profound ethical questions. A tactical nuclear weapon, even if smaller than strategic warheads, would release significant radiation, potentially affecting civilian populations in nearby areas. Qom, a major religious and cultural center, is home to hundreds of thousands of residents, and fallout could contaminate agricultural land and water sources, leading to long-term health and environmental consequences. The humanitarian toll of such an action would likely provoke international condemnation, even among U.S. allies.

Moreover, the use of a nuclear weapon for the first time since 1945 would shatter a global taboo, potentially lowering the threshold for other nations to deploy similar weapons in future conflicts. This precedent could undermine decades of non-proliferation efforts, emboldening states like North Korea or prompting adversaries to accelerate their own nuclear programs. For ordinary Americans, the decision would carry domestic ramifications, as public opinion remains wary of military escalations that risk global instability.

The reliance on conventional bombs, while less catastrophic, is not without risks. Collapsing Fordow’s tunnels could trap workers inside, and the resulting debris could complicate IAEA inspections, obscuring Iran’s nuclear activities further. The choice between an ineffective conventional strike and a devastating nuclear one places U.S. policymakers in an unenviable position, balancing immediate security concerns with long-term global consequences.

For Iranians, the threat of attack on Fordow reinforces a narrative of external aggression, potentially strengthening hardline factions within the government. Many Iranians view their nuclear program as a source of national pride and a deterrent against foreign intervention, a sentiment that could harden in the face of U.S. or Israeli action. This dynamic risks perpetuating a cycle of hostility, making diplomatic resolutions even more elusive.

Our Take

The DTRA’s assessment of the Fordow challenge underscores the perilous intersection of military necessity and ethical restraint. While Iran’s nuclear ambitions warrant concern, the absence of evidence supporting an active weapons program calls into question the urgency of military action, particularly one involving nuclear weapons. The U.S. must prioritize diplomatic engagement, potentially through renewed talks with Iran, to address Fordow’s activities without resorting to catastrophic measures. Israel’s security concerns are legitimate, but unilateral escalation risks a broader conflict that could engulf the region. Policymakers should explore technological innovations in conventional munitions and strengthen international pressure on Iran to allow robust inspections, preserving the possibility of a peaceful resolution.