A Nuclear Strike On Iran? It Sounds Absurd Because It Is. Let’s Talk About It

Tucker Carlson claimed that the Trump administration could launch a nuclear strike on Pickaxe Mountain within days. He said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pressuring President Donald Trump and that conventional weapons could not reach the buried tunnels. The claim mattered because it suggested the first U.S. nuclear use since Nagasaki in 1945.

The White House did not confirm the allegation. Instead, an official said Trump had many options and would act to protect Americans. The official also said Carlson had “no insight into military planning or the Commander-in-Chief’s thinking.” Trump had previously said nuclear weapons were unnecessary against Iran.

The claim’s source was unknown, and the article said its accuracy could not be established. Trump also answered “no” when asked whether he was considering an attack after the election. Still, the allegation spread widely and prompted warnings about the consequences of any nuclear use.

Pickaxe Mountain is a deeply buried Iranian facility in central Iran. Its other name is Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La. The site is described as very hardened, making it difficult to attack effectively. Its exact contents remain unconfirmed, so claims about its purpose are based on estimates and Iran’s publicly discussed plans.

Iran has openly discussed producing centrifuges there to support its nuclear enrichment efforts. Analysts also estimate that the facility is large enough to contain an actual enrichment plant and other nuclear infrastructure. Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium, though the article does not confirm that enrichment is currently taking place there.

The facility matters because its underground design could shield important equipment from conventional attacks. Carlson claimed Israeli intelligence believed Iran had restarted enrichment at the site. The article stressed that this claim was not independently confirmed and pointed readers to earlier reporting for more detail.

The article describes Pickaxe Mountain as deeply buried and very difficult to destroy. Carlson specifically claimed the tunnels lie under 300 feet of solid granite. That depth would place a substantial layer of extremely hard rock between attacking weapons and the facility’s interior.

The site is estimated to be large enough to house an actual uranium-enrichment plant. It could also contain centrifuges and other nuclear infrastructure. Iran has openly discussed plans to produce centrifuges there, but the article says exactly what is inside remains unconfirmed.

The depth is central to the dispute over possible military action. Carlson argued that no conventional American weapon could penetrate far enough, leaving a nuclear strike as the only military option. The White House did not endorse that assessment, and the article said Carlson’s information and its accuracy were unknown.

Conventional weapons destroy targets through effects such as blast, heat, fragments, or penetrating impact. Against a deeply buried site, much of that energy must first pass through thick, hard rock. Granite can absorb and disperse energy, while underground spaces may be shielded from surface explosions.

A penetrating weapon must reach the structure before detonating, or create enough force to collapse tunnels from above. Greater depth makes that harder. It also complicates targeting because the attacker may not know the facility’s exact layout or location underground. These are general principles, not proof that any particular weapon would fail.

Carlson claimed the Pickaxe Mountain tunnels were under 300 feet of granite and that no conventional American weapon could destroy them. The article did not independently verify that conclusion. It did establish that the facility is deeply buried and difficult to attack effectively, which explains why the claim generated concern.

A conventional weapon uses chemical explosives, kinetic impact, or related physical effects to damage a target. Its destructive power comes from the rapid release of chemical energy. Conventional weapons can create powerful blasts, fires, fragments, and penetrating impacts, but their effects are generally concentrated around the strike area.

A nuclear weapon releases energy from changes in atomic nuclei rather than only chemical reactions. That process can produce an enormous blast, intense heat, radiation, and radioactive fallout. The scale and persistence of those effects can be far greater than those from a conventional explosive. Exact results depend on the weapon, target, and conditions.

This difference explains the article’s concern about Carlson’s claim. He presented a nuclear strike as the only way to reach Pickaxe Mountain’s tunnels. Trump, however, publicly said nuclear weapons were unnecessary and that Iran had been defeated conventionally. The article warned that any nuclear use would have profound and irrevocable repercussions.

The article presents nuclear use against Iran as a decision with consequences far beyond one facility. Tyler Rogoway said using a nuclear weapon at Pickaxe Mountain would open “Pandora’s box” and make the United States and the world dramatically less safe. He called the possible repercussions profound and irrevocable.

The immediate effects would include the weapon’s destruction and the nuclear consequences associated with its use. The article does not provide casualty figures or a detailed damage forecast. It does say that any nuclear use would be a disaster regardless of the weapon’s size or the precise location of the strike.

The wider consequence would be political and strategic. Rogoway said U.S. involvement could become America’s largest foreign-policy error ever. The article also links the concern to the first nuclear use since Nagasaki in 1945. Because the claim was unverified, these are warnings about a possible event, not reported outcomes.

The article identifies Nagasaki as the last time the United States used a nuclear weapon in war, on August 9, 1945. It does not give a full explanation for the subsequent nonuse. Established historical understanding is that nuclear weapons’ unprecedented destruction, civilian effects, and escalation risks helped make their use politically and morally unacceptable.

Over decades, the absence of further battlefield use strengthened what is commonly called the nuclear taboo. The taboo is not a legal ban by itself. It is a powerful international norm that leaders should avoid using nuclear weapons except under extraordinary circumstances. The article treats this history as highly significant when discussing Pickaxe Mountain.

Rogoway warned that using a nuclear weapon there could open “Pandora’s box.” In that view, the event would not remain only an Iran operation; it could weaken the restraint built since 1945 and make the world less safe. The article gives no prediction about whether such use would occur.