Exclusive: US considering using ‘mother of all bombs’ against Iran, sources say

The MOAB is formally called the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb. It is the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal. Its nickname, “mother of all bombs,” emphasizes its exceptional size and explosive force. It is also known as a weapon for clearing a huge surface area.

The bomb weighs 21,600 pounds and is GPS-guided. Its blast can affect an area equivalent to nine city blocks. That makes it far larger than ordinary conventional munitions, though the article does not provide a specific comparison with another bomb. The MOAB is designed for massive area effects, not deep penetration.

The US military has reportedly included possible MOAB use in strike plans for Iran. Officials still question whether it could destroy deeply buried nuclear facilities. Its main impact could therefore be physical, visual, and psychological, while also creating serious civilian-risk concerns.

The MOAB’s scale makes it exceptional among US conventional weapons. It weighs 21,600 pounds and is described as America’s most powerful non-nuclear bomb. Its size matters because the weapon can produce a huge blast over a broad surface area, making it suited to large-area clearance rather than precise underground destruction.

The article gives two concrete measures. The MOAB’s blast can destroy an area equivalent to nine city blocks. It is also GPS-guided, allowing the military to direct the bomb toward a selected target area. However, its enormous size does not automatically make it effective against deeply buried facilities.

The article does not provide the weight or blast radius of other conventional bombs, so an exact numerical comparison is unavailable. It does identify the MOAB as the largest option in the military’s menu of conventional strike choices. That scale could make its use highly consequential and politically visible.

US military plans reportedly include the MOAB for two broad target groups in Iran: energy infrastructure and nuclear facilities. The reported purpose would be to strike important Iranian sites if President Donald Trump ordered combat operations to resume. The plans are part of wider options prepared for policymakers.

One source described planned attacks against “a lot of energy infrastructure.” Another said plans for Iranian nuclear sites, including Pickaxe Mountain, explicitly included the MOAB. The United States and Israel believe Iran has stored nuclear-program components there. Trump has repeatedly threatened to strike Pickaxe while emphasizing that Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon.

The article says the timing could be before or after the midterm elections. One planning phrase indicated strikes might occur before US forces begin withdrawing from the CENTCOM area. Officials remain unsure whether such attacks would end the war or achieve the administration’s broader strategic goals.

The MOAB is built for a huge surface blast, not deep penetration. Although it is GPS-guided and can destroy an area equivalent to nine city blocks, sources familiar with planning said it likely cannot reach far enough underground to destroy Iran’s suspected nuclear facilities. Its size creates broad surface damage, but size alone does not guarantee underground effectiveness.

Pickaxe Mountain is believed to be protected by layers of granite. The article also refers to other remaining Iranian nuclear sites as deeply underground. A source described the MOAB as “not much else” beyond a massive area-clearance weapon and said it was not designed as a deep-penetration warhead. The key mechanism is the difference between blast spread across the surface and force reaching buried targets.

That limitation creates doubts about the bomb’s strategic value. It could produce devastating visible damage while leaving important underground facilities intact. Military planners therefore offer it as a high-end option, but officials question whether it would accomplish the intended objective.

Using the MOAB against Iranian infrastructure could create serious risks for civilians and nearby non-military sites. The bomb’s blast would have devastating effects across the area it hits. Because energy facilities and other infrastructure can be near populated places, the weapon’s broad impact could extend beyond the intended target.

The article says the MOAB can affect an area equivalent to nine city blocks. Its massive blast radius is the key mechanism behind the danger. A strike aimed at infrastructure could therefore damage surrounding buildings and sites, while people in or near the impact area could face civilian casualties. The article does not provide a casualty estimate.

These risks would become especially important if the bomb were used against energy targets near population centers. The weapon might create a powerful visual and political signal, but its civilian effects could intensify opposition to the war. Officials would have to weigh those consequences against doubts about its military effectiveness.

The article identifies President Donald Trump as the person who could authorize renewed combat operations. It also says only the president has the power to end the war. Military planners do not independently choose one final strategy; they develop possible strike packages and present options to policymakers.

The military’s planning process includes a menu ranging from lower-end to higher-end choices. Higher-end targets, especially those deep underground, require larger bombs, making the MOAB one possible option. Separate officials reportedly described plans involving energy infrastructure and nuclear sites. These plans would then support a presidential decision about whether and when to strike.

The article does not detail the full chain of command or execution procedures. It does show a gap between preparing military options and having a strategy that ends the war. Officials privately questioned whether the White House had connected the strike plans to a workable political and military outcome.

A weapon’s value can extend beyond its direct ability to destroy a target. The article describes the MOAB as a massive information-operation weapon suited to huge area clearance. Using it for the first time in the Iran conflict would also mark a notable escalation. That visibility could shape how opponents, allies, and domestic audiences interpret US intentions.

The mechanism is signaling. A spectacular strike could communicate strength, resolve, or a claimed turning point, even if the bomb failed to penetrate deeply enough to destroy nuclear facilities. The article says officials discussed options that could provide a “definitive” end to the war, at least from a messaging perspective. Trump’s advisers also considered declaring victory before withdrawing.

However, psychological impact would not guarantee strategic success. Officials questioned whether the MOAB could accomplish Trump’s stated objectives or tip the war’s balance. Civilian casualties and damage to non-military sites could instead create backlash, making the message harder to control.