Trump’s Tactical Nuclear Option for Iran’s Fordow Facility: Escalation, Opposition, and Alternatives

Donald Trump’s assertion that a tactical nuclear warhead is the only viable option to obliterate Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Facility—supplanting the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) GBU-57—has thrust the United States into a high-stakes debate over military escalation, regional stability, and nuclear norms.

This claim emerges against a backdrop of intensifying Israel-Iran hostilities, marked by a recent assassination attempt on an Iranian negotiator, and a growing chorus of domestic opposition to war, including from prominent right-wing figures like Steve Bannon and Matt Gaetz. As Israel threatens unilateral strikes and the specter of regime change looms, the complexity of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and the historical echoes of past U.S.-Israel tensions add layers of uncertainty to an already volatile situation.

Trump’s Case: Tactical Nuclear Warheads vs. the MOP GBU-57

The Fordow Nuclear Facility, nestled near Qom, Iran, is a linchpin of Iran’s nuclear program. Buried up to 90 meters beneath a mountain, it is fortified with reinforced concrete and natural cover, designed to resist conventional airstrikes. The U.S. has historically relied on the GBU-57 MOP, a 30,000-pound bomb engineered to penetrate deeply buried targets, as its go-to weapon against such sites. Yet Trump contends that the MOP falls short of ensuring Fordow’s complete destruction.

The GBU-57 can penetrate significant depths—estimates suggest up to 60 meters of concrete or 200 feet of earth—and deliver a massive explosive payload. However, Fordow’s extreme fortification raises doubts about its effectiveness. Military analysts note that while the MOP could damage the facility, critical components might survive, allowing Iran to rebuild. Trump’s solution: a tactical nuclear warhead, a smaller, battlefield-focused nuclear weapon that could collapse the mountain entirely, guaranteeing Fordow’s obliteration.

This stance reflects a belief that half-measures won’t suffice against an existential threat, a view shared by Israel. But it’s a radical departure from conventional strategy. Deploying a nuclear weapon, even a “tactical” one, would shatter a nearly 80-year taboo, risking retaliation from Iran—via missiles or proxies like Hezbollah—and potentially drawing in Russia or China. The fallout, both literal and diplomatic, could destabilize the region and erode U.S. credibility worldwide.

Israel-Iran Flashpoint: Assassination and Escalation

Recent developments between Israel and Iran have pushed tensions to a breaking point, with Israel seemingly intent on derailing diplomatic efforts. A key incident was the attempted assassination of Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s senior negotiator in nuclear talks with the U.S. and other powers. While traveling—likely in a third country—Shamkhani narrowly escaped an attack widely attributed to Israel’s Mossad, though no official confirmation has emerged. His survival has not softened Iran’s resolve; instead, it has reinforced Tehran’s distrust, dimming prospects for reviving the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) or negotiating anew.

Israel’s actions suggest a deliberate strategy to end negotiations and force a military showdown. Recent airstrikes have hit Iranian nuclear sites, including Fordow, but their impact on deeply buried facilities has been limited. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran at all costs, warning that Israel will strike unilaterally if the U.S. hesitates. Israel claims it could deploy ground troops to finish the job, a move that would mark a dramatic escalation.

Yet Israel faces a critical limitation: it lacks penetrating bombs like the GBU-57, which only the U.S. possesses in significant numbers. Speculation persists that Israel might turn to its own alleged nuclear arsenal—reportedly developed with uranium illicitly obtained from the U.S. in the 1960s—to target Fordow. While Israel neither confirms nor denies its nuclear capabilities, estimates suggest it holds dozens of warheads. Using them would be a gamble, inviting massive retaliation and global condemnation. Alternatively, a ground operation could inflict heavy Israeli casualties, potentially serving as a pretext to pull the U.S. into the conflict.

America’s Reluctance: Opposition from the Right and Beyond

Trump’s nuclear rhetoric has met fierce resistance at home, where a substantial number of Americans—war-weary after decades in the Middle East—oppose further entanglement. This sentiment cuts across party lines but is particularly vocal among Trump’s right-wing base, with influential figures stepping forward to challenge the march to war.

Steve Bannon, Trump’s former strategist, reportedly met with the president to dissuade him from military action. Bannon argued that war with Iran would serve Israel’s interests over America’s, risking Trump’s political capital and alienating his supporters. He pushed for diplomacy, warning that a nuclear strike or prolonged conflict could fracture the MAGA coalition and derail Trump’s domestic agenda.

Representative Matt Gaetz has proposed a bolder alternative, suggesting Trump could secure a Nobel Peace Prize by de-nuclearizing both Iran and Israel. Gaetz contends that the U.S.’s focus on disarming Iran while ignoring Israel’s undeclared arsenal is inconsistent and fuels regional instability. His plan envisions a dual disarmament deal, verified by international inspectors, to neutralize the nuclear threat on both sides. Alternatively, a provocative idea: let Iran acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Israel, mirroring Cold War-era mutually assured destruction (MAD). This, he argues, could stabilize the region without bloodshed.

Both Bannon and Gaetz reflect a broader American frustration with being dragged into Israel’s battles. Many see Iran’s nuclear program as a regional issue, not a direct U.S. threat, and question why America should bear the cost—especially with nuclear weapons. This opposition complicates Trump’s calculus, pitting his base’s isolationism against pressure from Israel and hawkish advisors.

The Nuclear Maze: Iran’s Subterranean Network

Striking Fordow is only part of the challenge. Iran’s nuclear program spans multiple facilities, many hardened or buried underground. Known sites include Natanz (enrichment), Arak (heavy water reactor), and Parchin (military research), alongside Fordow. Each presents unique obstacles—depth, dispersion, and defenses like Russian-supplied S-300 and S-400 systems—that make a comprehensive strike a logistical nightmare.

Even if the U.S. or Israel hit all known targets, the existence of undisclosed sites looms large. Intelligence gaps mean Iran could conceal parts of its program, allowing it to recover post-attack. Israel’s lack of penetrating bombs limits its options, while a nuclear strike—Israeli or American—would escalate the conflict unpredictably. A ground invasion, as Israel threatens, would face Iran’s rugged terrain, fortified positions, and proxies like Hezbollah, likely resulting in significant losses. Some speculate Israel might use such casualties to compel U.S. intervention, arguing America must “finish what it started.”

Regime Change Redux: A Historical Echo

Beyond destroying facilities, the ultimate aim for some is regime change in Iran—the third such effort linked to Israel. In 1953, the CIA and MI6, with Israeli support, toppled Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, installing the Shah. In 1979, the Islamic Revolution ousted the Shah, birthing the current regime. Now, in 2025, advocates see military action as a path to dismantle the Islamic Republic.

But history warns of pitfalls. Regime change in Iraq and Libya left chaos and new threats in its wake. Iran’s complex political fabric—clerics, military, and populace—suggests toppling the government could spark civil war or empower a worse successor. The goal may be clear, but the outcome is anything but.

Disarming the Region: A Daunting Alternative

Gaetz’s de-nuclearization vision offers a radical fix: disarm both Iran and Israel. For Iran, this would mean abandoning its program under strict oversight, likely requiring sanctions relief and security assurances. For Israel, it’s a non-starter. Israel views its nuclear arsenal as an existential safeguard, a stance rooted in its history and reinforced by past resistance to U.S. pressure.

In the early 1960s, President John F. Kennedy urged Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to allow inspections of the Dimona reactor, suspecting a weapons program. Ben-Gurion stonewalled, and Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 halted the push. No U.S. leader since has seriously challenged Israel’s nuclear status, reflecting the alliance’s political weight. Disarming Israel today would face fierce opposition from its government and U.S. supporters, rendering Gaetz’s plan a steep uphill battle.

Letting Iran go nuclear, meanwhile, upends decades of U.S. policy. It might deter Israel, but the Middle East’s multipolar rivalries—unlike the U.S.-Soviet binary—could trigger a cascade of proliferation, with Saudi Arabia and others seeking their own bombs. The region’s volatility makes MAD a risky bet.

A Perilous Choice

Trump’s push for a tactical nuclear warhead to erase Fordow underscores the gravity of the Israel-Iran standoff. Israel’s assassination attempt on Shamkhani and threats of unilateral action signal a rejection of diplomacy, risking a war that could ensnare the U.S. Yet domestic opposition, from Bannon’s warnings to Gaetz’s peace proposals, highlights America’s reluctance to plunge in—especially with nuclear stakes.

The options are stark. A nuclear strike promises tactical success but global fallout. De-nuclearizing both nations is a noble dream, thwarted by political realities. Arming Iran as a counterweight defies convention and risks chaos. As Trump navigates this crossroads, the shadows of JFK’s clash with Ben-Gurion and the Cold War’s tense equilibrium loom, urging a reckoning with the costs of escalation versus the pursuit of an elusive peace.