Trump plots fresh strikes on Iran

The United States military has developed fresh plans for possible strikes against Iran, including the use of its most powerful non-nuclear bomb against energy infrastructure and nuclear-related facilities, as President Donald Trump faces mounting pressure to find a way to end a war that has dragged on for months without a lasting settlement.

The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), popularly known as the “Mother of All Bombs”, is among the options being considered if Trump orders renewed combat operations, according to a CNN report published on Thursday, October 15, citing American officials familiar with the military planning.

The reported plans include potential attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure and the underground nuclear facility known as Pickaxe Mountain, where Washington and Israel believe Iran may have stored components associated with its nuclear programme. Blueprint reports

However, the proposal has not been confirmed as an approved military operation. Questions remain within American military circles over whether the bomb could destroy deeply buried nuclear facilities or produce a decisive strategic outcome.

The development comes as Washington and Tehran remain far apart on the conditions for ending hostilities, despite several rounds of negotiations and a temporary agreement that failed to produce a durable peace.

Trump has repeatedly maintained that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons, but the absence of a comprehensive settlement has left his administration facing a difficult choice between renewed military action, continued economic pressure and a negotiated exit from the conflict.

Trump seeks a decisive outcome

The latest military planning reflects the administration’s continuing search for a way to conclude the conflict while presenting the outcome as a success.

According to CNN, Trump has asked the military to prepare additional packages of possible strikes, including attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure and options involving the MOAB. Some officials have questioned privately whether further bombing would achieve the administration’s stated objectives or simply prolong the confrontation.

The president has also faced pressure at home as the November 3 midterm elections approach. The war has contributed to concerns about fuel prices, economic uncertainty and the cost of maintaining an extended military campaign.

Although some administration officials have portrayed Iran’s military capabilities as severely weakened, Trump has been more cautious about declaring the conflict over. The latest report indicates that military options remain under consideration as officials attempt to identify an outcome that could be presented as a victory without requiring a prolonged commitment of American forces.

CNN reported that advisers have discussed the possibility of carrying out additional strikes before withdrawing American forces from the region. Such a scenario would depend on a presidential decision and would not, by itself, guarantee an end to hostilities.

Trump has also indicated that he has little appetite for sending American ground troops into Iran. A major ground operation could expose US personnel to substantial casualties and commit Washington to a much larger and potentially longer military campaign.

This leaves the administration weighing the potential benefits of further air strikes against the risks of retaliation, renewed regional fighting and failure to secure a lasting agreement.

Why the MOAB is being considered

The MOAB weighs approximately 21,600 pounds, or 9.8 tonnes, and is designed to deliver a powerful blast over a wide area. It is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal and was first used in combat during Trump’s first presidency, when American forces deployed it against an Islamic State tunnel complex in Afghanistan in 2017.

Its enormous explosive force makes it capable of causing extensive destruction across a target area. However, it was not designed primarily to penetrate deeply buried, heavily fortified installations.

That limitation is particularly relevant to the reported plans for Iran. Some of the country’s suspected nuclear facilities are believed to be protected by layers of rock and other material, making them difficult to destroy through conventional air strikes.

CNN quoted a source familiar with the discussions as describing the weapon as effective for clearing large areas but unsuitable as a deep-penetration warhead.

Consequently, deploying the bomb against a nuclear facility would not necessarily destroy the underground structures or materials Washington wants to eliminate. Its impact would depend on the precise target, the depth of the installation and the protection surrounding it.

The weapon could nevertheless be considered for its destructive and psychological effects, particularly if the administration wanted to demonstrate that it retained the ability to inflict substantial damage without launching a ground invasion.

Military planners are expected to present political leaders with a range of options, but the existence of such plans does not mean the president has approved them.

Nuclear dispute remains at the centre of the war

The confrontation began on February 28, 2026, when the United States and Israel launched attacks against Iran. The two countries said their campaign was intended to address threats posed by Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and its wider military activities in the region.

The opening strikes killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to reports on the conflict, triggering retaliation by Tehran.

Iran subsequently launched missile and drone attacks against Israel and American military installations in the region. The conflict also affected neighbouring countries and raised fears of a wider regional war involving Iran-aligned armed groups.

Washington and Israel have consistently argued that Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons. Tehran has denied pursuing such weapons, although its nuclear programme and the level of international oversight remain central to the dispute.

The reported interest in targeting Pickaxe Mountain illustrates the continuing importance of the nuclear issue to American military planning. Trump has repeatedly warned that Iran will not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon and has threatened further action against facilities believed to be connected to the programme.

However, even a successful attack on a particular installation would not automatically resolve every aspect of the dispute. The broader question of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, its willingness to negotiate and the guarantees required by Washington would remain part of any settlement.

Diplomatic efforts fail to produce lasting peace

Efforts to end the war have repeatedly stalled over differences concerning the nuclear programme, sanctions, security arrangements and the withdrawal or continuation of military pressure.

An early round of negotiations in Islamabad in April failed to produce a settlement. The discussions were part of wider efforts to stop the fighting and establish terms acceptable to both sides.

A temporary understanding reached in June subsequently offered a possible route towards ending hostilities. The arrangement envisaged a process for addressing military operations, freedom of navigation, Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, and sanctions.

However, disagreements over implementation undermined the agreement. The United States and Iran differed over the sequence in which their obligations should be fulfilled, particularly whether Washington should ease its economic and maritime pressure before Tehran made concessions.

The dispute over the Strait of Hormuz became one of the most visible manifestations of the deadlock. Iran restricted shipping through the strategic waterway, while the United States imposed a naval blockade targeting Iranian ports and maritime trade.

Although the June arrangement briefly improved prospects for restoring commercial traffic, the wider disagreement remained unresolved. Washington reinstated its blockade in July, while Tehran continued to use its strategic position in the Gulf as leverage.

In September, further discussions explored a possible phased arrangement under which Iran would reopen the strait in return for the easing of American restrictions. But the two sides remained divided over the conditions and order of implementation.

Iran’s latest response to an American proposal was described by Iranian officials as insufficient, according to reports published earlier this week. The continuing impasse has left both military pressure and diplomatic engagement in play.

Hormuz crisis adds to the pressure

Although the nuclear dispute remains central to Washington’s stated war objectives, the Strait of Hormuz has become an important arena in the struggle over economic and strategic leverage.

The waterway connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, carrying a substantial share of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments. Restrictions and attacks on commercial vessels have disrupted shipping and contributed to uncertainty over energy supplies.

The latest incidents involving commercial ships have reinforced concerns that maritime security could deteriorate further if negotiations collapse completely. The United States has also used its naval presence to enforce restrictions on Iranian shipping, while Tehran has threatened further action against vessels using routes it considers unauthorised.

The confrontation has raised transport and insurance costs and increased uncertainty for energy markets. It has also demonstrated how the conflict can affect countries far removed from the battlefield through higher fuel costs, disrupted trade and pressure on food production.

For the Trump administration, the maritime crisis is another reason to seek a settlement that restores predictable shipping while addressing Washington’s security demands. For Iran, the ability to disrupt a strategically important route provides leverage against American economic pressure.

However, neither side has yet secured an arrangement capable of resolving the wider conflict.

Civilian risks and the possibility of escalation

The potential use of the MOAB has raised concerns about civilian casualties, particularly if energy infrastructure near populated areas were targeted.

The weapon’s large blast radius could cause extensive destruction, while damage to electricity, fuel or other essential facilities could affect civilians beyond the immediate strike zone.

Any operation would have to comply with international humanitarian law, including the obligations to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, take feasible precautions and avoid attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the anticipated military advantage.

The risks would be especially serious if the intended targets were located near residential areas or facilities providing essential services.

There is also the possibility that further American strikes could prompt Iran to retaliate against US forces, Israel or regional infrastructure, potentially widening the conflict instead of bringing it to a close.

For now, the MOAB remains a reported option within a broader set of military plans. The central question facing Washington is whether additional force could secure a settlement that previous attacks and negotiations have failed to deliver.

With diplomacy stalled, the nuclear dispute unresolved and the economic consequences of the war continuing to spread, Trump’s next decision could determine whether the conflict moves towards a negotiated end or another phase of military escalation.