US-Iran war: Trump says Washington is weighing striking Pickaxe Mountain in Tehran, rejects use of ground troops

Pickaxe Mountain is described as a suspected nuclear site in Iran. It is buried beneath layers of rock and is heavily fortified. That matters because an underground facility can protect equipment and nuclear-programme components from ordinary airstrikes. The article says Washington and Israel believe Iran stored parts of its nuclear programme there.

The site illustrates why military planners may consider unusually powerful weapons. A bomb must penetrate or damage rock and reinforced structures before reaching important areas inside. Trump said the United States was “looking at Pickaxe Mountain” and might have to strike it. He also said such an attack could be completed quickly and would not necessarily require ground troops.

The site remains a possible target if US combat operations resume. The article links it to further strike plans prepared by the Pentagon. However, it does not confirm that Pickaxe Mountain was hit, or that a future attack would destroy everything inside. Its status therefore remains central to the uncertainty surrounding the conflict.

The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, or MOAB, is a powerful conventional weapon. Trump called it the “mother of all bombs” and stressed that it is not nuclear. This distinction matters because a conventional blast and a nuclear explosion cause damage through different physical processes and have very different consequences.

The MOAB uses chemical explosives and is designed to create a huge blast across a broad area. It does not produce energy through a nuclear chain reaction. Trump compared it to a “tiny nuclear bomb” in size, but immediately clarified that it was not nuclear at all. The article says it is simply an extremely large bomb.

The Pentagon was reportedly considering the weapon for possible strikes against Iranian targets, including Pickaxe Mountain. The report did not establish that Trump approved its use. If deployed, the MOAB would still be a conventional attack, even though its scale could make it especially destructive near infrastructure or fortified sites.

The MOAB is unusually large by conventional-weapons standards. Established specifications put the GBU-43/B’s weight at about 21,600 pounds, or nearly 10 tonnes. Its explosive force is commonly estimated at roughly 11 tons of TNT equivalent. The article itself only describes it as an “extremely large bomb,” so these figures add established technical context.

Compared with many conventional bombs, the MOAB produces a much larger blast and affects a wider area. It is also larger than the earlier BLU-82 “Daisy Cutter,” another powerful US conventional bomb. Its strength comes from a large quantity of chemical explosive, not from nuclear material or a nuclear chain reaction.

That scale explains why officials reportedly considered it for difficult targets such as Pickaxe Mountain. Size alone, however, does not guarantee destruction of a deeply buried facility. Rock, fortifications, target depth, and the bomb’s ability to reach the protected structure would still determine the result.

An underground nuclear facility is difficult to attack because its most important equipment may sit below thick rock and reinforced structures. The layers above it can absorb or redirect some blast energy. A strike that devastates the surface may therefore leave protected rooms, machinery, or stored components intact. That is why the target’s depth and construction matter.

Pickaxe Mountain is described as buried beneath rock and heavily fortified. The article says the Pentagon was considering the MOAB and had prepared plans for nuclear facilities and energy infrastructure. Trump rejected the idea that destroying Pickaxe Mountain would require ground troops, saying, “No, I don't see that.” His statement shows that airpower was being presented as sufficient, though not proven so.

If air attacks cannot reach the core facility, planners might consider repeated strikes, specialized penetrating weapons, or troops on the ground. Such choices would increase military and political risks. The article does not say which option would ultimately be used or whether any attack would succeed.

The conflict is in an uncertain phase because military action has paused without producing a settled peace. Trump said the Iran war would end very soon, possibly through negotiations or other means. At the same time, he suggested that the United States could strike Pickaxe Mountain and said further combat plans were ready. These positions point in opposite directions.

The article describes Trump’s approach as shifting between diplomacy, military strikes, and tougher sanctions. He had claimed victory early in the seven-month conflict, but later considered renewed bombing. He also rejected a proposed seven-day ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz unless Washington met Tehran’s demands. Reports suggested bombing might resume after the US midterm elections.

The result is a conflict suspended between war and peace. Negotiations could still end the fighting, but officials believe Trump could change course again. The midterm election results may influence his decisions. Until policy becomes clearer, renewed strikes remain possible and diplomacy remains active.

If the United States resumes bombing, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure could suffer additional damage. Trump said earlier strikes had already caused severe harm, but argued that leaving before eliminating the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon could require another attack later. Energy infrastructure could also be targeted, according to reported US plans. The immediate effect would be greater physical destruction.

The regional and diplomatic effects could be broader. New attacks could intensify the conflict, raise pressure around energy supplies, and make negotiations harder. The article links the conflict to oil and gas prices, with Trump predicting that both would fall when the war ended. It also describes an earlier Iranian proposal involving a seven-day ceasefire and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

The next step is uncertain. Trump says the war may end soon through negotiations or other means, yet Pentagon plans reportedly remain ready. Renewed strikes could weaken Iran’s programme, but they could also prolong the conflict. The article provides no confirmed forecast of how Iran or neighbouring states would respond.

A nuclear weapon is a device that releases energy from nuclear reactions, rather than relying only on chemical explosives. Fission weapons split heavy atomic nuclei, while thermonuclear weapons also use fusion reactions. These processes can produce an explosion vastly greater than ordinary bombs, along with intense heat, radiation, and long-lasting contamination. The article contrasts such weapons with the non-nuclear MOAB.

Countries seek to prevent other states from acquiring nuclear weapons because proliferation can make regional conflicts far more dangerous. A new nuclear arsenal could trigger arms races, increase the risk of miscalculation, and make military crises harder to control. The article reflects this concern through Trump’s claim that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon.

The article does not independently establish whether Iran possesses one. It says Washington and Israel believe Iran stored nuclear-programme components at Pickaxe Mountain. Trump argued that leaving before eliminating the possibility of an Iranian weapon could mean fighting again within a year, making the issue central to both military planning and diplomacy.