Trump weighs ‘mother of all bombs’ strike on Iran’s nuclear and energy sites: What is it?

The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, or MOAB, is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the US military’s arsenal. It is designed to produce an enormous blast over a broad area. That makes it useful against exposed targets, equipment, troop formations and some above-ground fortifications. It was also partly developed as a psychological weapon to intimidate enemy forces.

The bomb is GPS-guided. It does not normally smash into the ground first. Instead, it detonates in the air, sending its force outward across the surface. Its destructive reach can cover an area roughly equivalent to nine city blocks, according to CNN. The weapon weighs approximately 21,600 pounds, or 9,800 kilograms.

This design gives the MOAB dramatic destructive power, but limits its usefulness underground. Unlike a bunker-buster, it is not mainly built to penetrate deep rock or concrete. US planners are therefore debating whether its surface blast would achieve enough against Iran’s heavily protected nuclear facilities.

The MOAB is enormous by conventional-weapons standards. The article puts its weight at approximately 21,600 pounds, equal to about 9,800 kilograms. That makes it the largest non-nuclear bomb in the US military’s arsenal. Its scale helps explain both its powerful reputation and concerns about using it near civilians.

The weapon’s blast can spread across an area equivalent to approximately nine city blocks, according to CNN. This happens because the bomb detonates before reaching the ground. The explosion sends force outward and across the surface instead of concentrating mainly on a narrow underground point. It is therefore suited to broad-area effects.

Its size does not automatically make it effective against every target. A wide blast could heavily damage exposed energy infrastructure or above-ground positions. But underground nuclear facilities may be shielded by rock and concrete. There, the bomb’s broad reach could matter less than a weapon’s ability to penetrate deeply.

US planners are considering the MOAB because potential targets include both Iranian energy infrastructure and nuclear sites such as Pickaxe Mountain. The United States and Israel believe Iran has stored components of its nuclear programme there. A massive air blast could damage exposed facilities, equipment and other surface targets across a wide area.

The weapon is designed to detonate above the ground and spread its force outward. That makes it more suitable for clearing large areas than for drilling into deep underground structures. Its blast could also serve as a dramatic display of military power. During development, officials viewed the MOAB partly as a psychological tool intended to encourage enemy forces to surrender.

The proposal remains uncertain. Officials and analysts question whether the bomb could destroy heavily fortified nuclear facilities. Its possible use may be part of wider strike options developed before a potential resumption of combat operations or a withdrawal of US personnel.

The MOAB might fail against deeply buried nuclear facilities because it is primarily an air-blast weapon. It is designed to explode before hitting the ground and spread force outward. That produces powerful surface effects, but does not necessarily carry enough energy deep through rock and fortified structures. The distinction is crucial when the target is underground.

CNN reported that Iran’s facilities may be protected by layers of granite and other underground fortifications. Sources familiar with planning said the bomb might not penetrate deeply enough to destroy them. One source described it as better suited to clearing large areas than reaching far below the surface. Surface damage could therefore be extensive without eliminating the protected facility.

This creates a gap between destruction and strategic success. The MOAB could damage entrances, equipment or nearby infrastructure, but planners have questioned whether it could ensure Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. Its usefulness would depend heavily on the target’s depth and protection.

A large MOAB air blast could cause extensive destruction above ground. Exposed buildings, equipment and energy infrastructure could be damaged or destroyed across a broad area. Because the weapon’s effects spread outward, damage would not be limited to one small point. Energy supplies could be disrupted if facilities were struck.

The weapon’s mechanism explains the risk. It detonates before hitting the ground, producing a powerful blast that travels across the surface. Its destructive reach can cover approximately nine city blocks. Near populated areas or non-military facilities, that wide effect could hit people and structures beyond the intended target. The article specifically raises concerns about civilian casualties.

The consequences would depend on where the bomb was used. A strike against exposed infrastructure might create major physical damage, while a strike near communities could produce civilian harm and wider disruption. The weapon’s dramatic force therefore does not guarantee a decisive military result, especially against deeply buried nuclear sites.

The MOAB was first used in combat in April 2017, during Donald Trump’s first presidential term. Trump authorised the strike against Islamic State positions in Afghanistan. The weapon’s possible use against Iran would therefore be its second known combat deployment, if it occurs. Its first mission established its battlefield record, but not necessarily its suitability for deep nuclear sites.

Afghan officials said the 2017 strike killed 36 ISIS fighters. They also said it destroyed underground tunnels, weapons and ammunition. The bomb’s blast was used against an area containing underground positions and military supplies. Afghan and US officials reported no civilian casualties at the time.

The Afghanistan operation is part of the argument surrounding a possible Iran strike, but the situations differ in the article’s account. Iran’s nuclear facilities may lie beneath layers of granite and other fortifications. Officials and analysts therefore question whether the same weapon could deliver a decisive result there.

An air-blast weapon is designed to explode before reaching the ground. The MOAB sends its force outward across a large surface area. A penetrating bunker-buster, by contrast, is designed to enter the ground or a fortified structure before exploding. Its purpose is to concentrate destructive force deeper inside or below a target.

The MOAB’s mechanism makes it effective against large troop formations, equipment and certain above-ground positions. Its blast can cover approximately nine city blocks. A bunker-buster’s deeper penetration is more relevant when a facility is protected by layers of granite, concrete or other underground fortifications. The article describes Iran’s nuclear sites as potentially protected in this way.

This distinction could determine whether a strike achieves its objective. The MOAB might destroy surface infrastructure and clear a broad area without eliminating a buried nuclear facility. Officials and analysts therefore question whether its dramatic blast could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.