President Donald Trump is reportedly taking time to assess whether U.S. military power—specifically bunker-busting bombs—could be used to target Iran’s deeply buried Fordow nuclear facility. The deliberation has become one of the most closely watched developments in U.S. foreign policy discussions, with Trump signaling he may take two weeks to reach a decision on whether or not to support or initiate a military strike against the site.
Trump’s interest is not only in whether to act but also whether the United States truly has the military capability to successfully destroy such a heavily fortified target. The Fordow enrichment facility, located deep within a mountain south of Tehran, is one of Iran’s most secretive and resilient nuclear sites. It is designed to survive conventional airstrikes—making it extremely difficult to reach without specialized weaponry.
Central to Trump’s inquiry is the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, an approximately 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb developed specifically to penetrate fortified underground facilities. While the U.S. is the only nation that possesses this weapon and the aircraft capable of delivering it, doubts remain about whether it could completely neutralize a target like Fordow. Some military experts have expressed skepticism that even this powerful bomb would be able to guarantee destruction of the underground site, raising concerns about the effectiveness and consequences of any potential strike.
This renewed military focus has emerged as Israel reportedly intensifies its own covert and overt campaigns against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. However, Israel lacks the kind of bunker-busting bombs and strategic bombers needed to target Fordow effectively—making any major attack on that facility nearly impossible without U.S. involvement.
Trump’s considerations have sparked debate among military analysts, lawmakers, and international observers. Supporters of a hardline approach argue that a credible threat or actual strike may deter Iran from further advancing its nuclear capabilities. Critics, however, warn that military action against Iran could rapidly escalate into a broader regional conflict, upending diplomacy and risking retaliation against U.S. interests.
During his presidency, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, citing its perceived weaknesses. Since then, Tehran has significantly expanded its enrichment activities, further complicating any efforts to revive a diplomatic solution. As Trump campaigns for a possible return to the White House, his approach to Iran is expected to be a key foreign policy issue.
No final decision has been made, and Trump has reportedly asked advisers and military contacts for more information before committing to a course of action. His comments and questions underscore the seriousness of the situation—and the geopolitical risks of a potential U.S. military strike on Iranian soil.
