Nestled deep within a mountain near the city of Qom, Iran's Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant stands as one of the most fortified and contentious sites in global security. Designed to withstand conventional airstrikes, Fordow's underground structure, buried 80–90 metres, possibly up to 300 feet, has sparked intense debate within the U.S. intelligence and defence communities. Some argue that only a tactical nuclear weapon could destroy it, while others explore conventional or alternative methods. This blog piece examines the technical feasibility of neutralising Fordow and the profound political consequences of using a nuclear weapon, focusingon the strategic and technical dimensions.
Fordow is a fortress of engineering, built to protect Iran's nuclear ambitions. Located inside a mountain, the facility is shielded by layers of rock and reinforced concrete, with estimates suggesting a depth of 80–90 metres, potentially extending to 300 feet. It houses advanced IR-6 centrifuges and uranium enriched to at least 60%, perilously close to weapons-grade. Russian-supplied S-300 air defence systems further complicate any attack. These features make Fordow a uniquely challenging target, designed to survive all but the most extreme assaults.
The U.S.'s most powerful non-nuclear weapon, the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), is a 30,000-pound bunker-buster carried by B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. With a 5,342-pound explosive warhead, it can penetrate up to 60 meters (200 feet) of earth or rock. However, doubts persist about its ability to destroy Fordow. Defence analyses suggest that the facility's depth and reinforcement may exceed the MOP's capabilities. Multiple strikes, with bombs landing in the same crater to deepen penetration, might collapse tunnels or entrances but could leave core enrichment infrastructure intact. A Defense Threat Reduction Agency briefing noted that conventional bombs might only bury Fordow under rubble, allowing Iran to rebuild.
Some U.S. defense officials contend that only a tactical nuclear weapon could ensure Fordow's destruction. The required yield depends on the facility's exact depth and geological composition. A 2013 National Academy of Sciences panel modelled strikes on similar targets with 300-kiloton (kt) nuclear weapons, far more powerful than the 15-kt Hiroshima bomb. For Fordow, a tactical nuke in the 10–300 kt range, likely 100–300 kt for certainty, could be delivered via a B61-11 nuclear bunker-buster, designed to penetrate earth before detonating. However, challenges remain:
Shockwave Dynamics: Underground nuclear detonations create upward and outward blasts, potentially dissipating energy before reaching Fordow's core.
Geological Uncertainty: The mountain's composition (e.g., granite or limestone) affects a nuke's effectiveness. Without precise intelligence, even a tactical nuke might only partially damage the facility.
Radiological Risks: While Fordow's uranium hexafluoride gas is unlikely to cause widespread contamination, local fallout from the explosion and any enriched uranium could pose risks.
Even with a nuclear weapon, complete destruction is not guaranteed, and multiple strikes might be needed.
Non-nuclear options exist but are less effective. Israel, lacking the GBU-57, has considered special forces raids or cyberattacks like Stuxnet, which disrupted Iran's Natanz facility in 2010. However, Fordow's heavy security and remote location make such operations risky and unlikely to achieve total destruction. Sabotage or sequential conventional strikes could delay Iran's program but not eliminate it.
A tactical nuclear weapon (100–300 kt) offers a higher probability of destroying Fordow than the GBU-57 MOP, but success is uncertain due to the facility's depth and reinforcement. Conventional bombs may collapse tunnels but leave critical infrastructure intact. Alternative methods like sabotage or cyberattacks can disrupt operations but not destroy the facility. The choice of weapon hinges on classified geological data and strategic priorities.
While the technical question is complex, the political fallout of using a tactical nuclear weapon on Fordow would be seismic, reshaping global and regional dynamics.
Since 1945, no nation has used nuclear weapons in combat, establishing a global "nuclear taboo." A U.S. nuclear strike on Fordow would shatter this norm, potentially normalising nuclear use in future conflicts. Adversaries like Russia or North Korea might seize the precedent to justify their own nuclear actions, destabilising global security.
Allies: European allies, wary of escalation and fallout, might condemn the strike, straining NATO. Gulf allies like Saudi Arabia could face domestic pressure to distance themselves from the U.S.
Adversaries: Russia and China, bound to Iran by strategic agreements like the 2025 Iran-Russia Treaty, could respond with diplomatic sanctions, increased military support for Iran, or aggressive posturing elsewhere.
Global South: Non-aligned nations might view the strike as imperialist aggression, eroding U.S. soft power and fuelling anti-American sentiment.
Iran has vowed to retaliate against U.S. or Israeli strikes, targeting bases, embassies, or allies like Israel and the UAE. A nuclear attack near Qom could galvanise Iranian nationalism, strengthening the regime despite internal dissent. Iran might escalate via missile strikes or proxies like Hezbollah, risking a broader Middle East conflict.
Paradoxically, a nuclear strike could accelerate Iran's nuclear ambitions. If Fordow is only partially damaged, Iran could rebuild or disperse its program to clandestine sites, leveraging its nuclear expertise, which cannot be destroyed by bombs. Iran might also withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, openly pursuing weapons-grade uranium, citing the U.S. strike as justification.
Domestically, a nuclear strike could polarise the U.S., with isolationists opposing escalation and hawks defending it. Verifying Fordow's destruction would be challenging without IAEA access, relying on seismic data or satellite imagery, potentially sparking debates over the strike's success. Diplomatically, the strike would likely end prospects for negotiations, rendering agreements like the JCPOA obsolete.
Destroying Fordow is a formidable challenge. A tactical nuclear weapon offers the best chance of success but carries no guarantee, given Fordow's fortifications and geological uncertainties. Conventional bombs like the GBU-57 may disrupt but not eliminate the facility, while non-nuclear alternatives fall short. Politically, a nuclear strike would break decades of restraint, provoke global and regional backlash, and potentially embolden Iran's nuclear ambitions. The decision to use such a weapon would require balancing technical feasibility against catastrophic strategic consequences, underscoring the complexity of addressing Iran's nuclear program. But be sure that Trump's decision, to be made in less than two weeks, will not consider these factors; the man who rejects the advice of his own intelligence community and openly says so, is not to be trusted.
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/us-defence-officials-told-that-only