Iran live updates: Trump admin prepares options, including 'mother of all bombs'

The MOAB is a very large conventional bomb designed to produce an immense blast. Its nickname stands for Massive Ordnance Air Blast. The article says it is the largest U.S. non-nuclear weapon. That distinction matters because “non-nuclear” describes its energy source and effects, not an absence of danger or destruction.

A nuclear weapon releases energy through nuclear reactions. A MOAB uses chemical explosives and a fuel-air blast effect, creating intense pressure and heat across a wide area. Established public specifications place the bomb at about 21,600 pounds, with an explosive force comparable to roughly 11 tons of TNT. The article itself does not provide those measurements.

Officials reportedly prepared the MOAB as one possible option for President Trump. No decision had been made, and Trump said he would not use nuclear weapons. The reported planning therefore showed possible conventional escalation, not a nuclear strike. The White House said it keeps options available to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The MOAB is unusually large by conventional-bomb standards. The article identifies it as the largest U.S. non-nuclear weapon. That makes it a top-end conventional tool rather than an ordinary battlefield bomb. Its significance is its concentrated ability to produce a huge blast without using nuclear reactions.

Publicly available specifications describe the MOAB as weighing about 21,600 pounds, or nearly 11 tons, and producing an explosive effect comparable to roughly 11 tons of TNT. Those figures are established background information, not measurements supplied by this article. The bomb is also larger and more powerful than standard conventional munitions used for many routine strikes.

Its possible use would signal a major escalation in the conflict with Iran. Officials prepared it among several options, but the president had not decided. Trump previously used the MOAB against an Islamic State cave complex in 2017. The article provides no estimate of a possible target, damage area, or delivery plan in this conflict.

A range of options is a menu of possible actions prepared for a president during a crisis. Military and defense officials assess different responses, from limited measures to much larger attacks. This matters because the president can compare risks, goals, timing, and likely consequences before deciding. Planning is not the same as ordering an operation.

In this case, sources told ABC News that officials prepared several choices for further escalation against Iran. The list reportedly included the Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, known as the “mother of all bombs.” Trump was meeting senior officials and receiving options, while the White House declined to discuss sensitive plans.

The article says no decision had been made. Trump had also said he would not strike Iran before the midterm election, while promising on the campaign trail that the war would end soon. The next step therefore depended on presidential choice, not simply on the existence of military planning.

These places matter because they link military action with shipping and energy security. The Strait of Hormuz is described as the primary flashpoint between the United States and Iran. Saudi Arabia is facing attacks and protecting important energy infrastructure. Yemen is the base of fighting involving Iranian-backed Houthis and Saudi-backed Yemeni forces.

The article reports that an oil tanker allegedly struck a naval mine in the strait. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard blamed an unauthorized route, while the United States disputed an earlier mine claim involving the GFS Pride. Saudi Arabia also reported intercepting three missiles and three drones. One missile was headed toward Yanbu, an important Red Sea port.

France has begun deploying military assets in Saudi Arabia. Its stated purpose is to support defense of Saudi energy infrastructure, especially the Yanbu East-West Corridor. These developments widen the conflict’s regional stakes. Further attacks or disruptions could place more pressure on shipping, military defenses, and energy networks.

If fighting or naval mines made the Strait of Hormuz unsafe, ships could slow down, reroute, or avoid the passage. That would make oil transport less reliable and more expensive. Buyers and traders could also react to the danger by bidding up prices. The article links the wider conflict to regional energy security, but it does not provide a specific price estimate.

The reported tanker incident shows the mechanism. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said a supertanker struck a naval mine after using an unauthorized route. The United States disputed an earlier mine claim, saying the GFS Pride was hit by an Iranian projectile. Whether caused by mines or missiles, threats could force ships to seek protection or wait for safer conditions.

The consequences would depend on how long disruption lasted and whether alternative routes or escorts were available. France is deploying assets to help defend Saudi energy infrastructure. Continued attacks could increase insurance, transport, and supply costs, with those pressures potentially reaching consumers through higher energy prices.

The article describes a layered regional conflict. The United States and Israel launched joint strikes against Iranian military, government, and infrastructure sites. Iran is also the backer of Yemen’s Houthi militia. Saudi Arabia supports opposing Yemeni forces and leads a coalition that is defending Saudi territory. France is supporting Saudi energy defenses.

The clearest example is Yemen. Fighting has intensified between Iranian-backed Houthis and Saudi-backed Yemeni forces. The Houthis have also launched strikes on Saudi Arabia. Saudi authorities reported intercepting three missiles and three drones, including a ballistic missile aimed toward Yanbu and cruise missiles over the Red Sea.

The United States and Iran have renewed strikes after talks broke down, with Hormuz as the main flashpoint. Israel is connected through the joint U.S.-Israeli attacks. France is not described as a direct combatant against Iran; its role is deploying military assets to protect Saudi energy infrastructure and regional security.

A conventional bomb releases energy from chemical explosives. That energy rapidly expands gases, producing a powerful pressure wave, intense heat, and fast-moving debris. These effects can destroy structures, damage infrastructure, and injure or kill people. A nuclear weapon adds energy from nuclear reactions, which can create far greater effects and radiation.

The MOAB illustrates the difference. It is a very large conventional weapon, and the article calls it the largest U.S. non-nuclear bomb. Public specifications describe a roughly 21,600-pound weapon with an explosive force comparable to about 11 tons of TNT. Those measurements are outside the article, but they explain why a non-nuclear bomb can still cause enormous local destruction.

The reported plan involving the MOAB concerns possible escalation against Iran, not nuclear use. Trump said he would not use nuclear weapons. Even so, choosing the largest U.S. conventional bomb would carry serious military and political consequences, depending on its target and the broader response.