US military planners are considering the massive conventional weapon for possible attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure and nuclear sites, although questions remain about its effectiveness.
Web Desk: The United States military is reportedly considering deploying its largest non-nuclear bomb against Iranian targets if President Donald Trump orders a resumption of military operations, according to a CNN report published on Thursday and cited by international news organisations.
The weapon under consideration is the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, widely known as the “Mother of All Bombs” or MOAB. According to CNN, which cited US officials familiar with the plans, potential targets could include Iranian energy infrastructure and nuclear-related sites.
The reported preparations come as the conflict between Washington and Tehran remains deadlocked and diplomatic efforts to end the fighting have made limited progress.
However, the reports do not establish that Trump has authorised the bomb’s use. Military officials have also raised questions about whether the weapon could achieve the intended objectives, particularly against deeply buried nuclear facilities. <cite>Reuters and AFP reporting, October 15, 2026.</cite>
US military reportedly prepares additional strike options
CNN reported that US military planners have developed options that could include the MOAB if the president decides to resume combat operations.
The potential deployment would represent a significant escalation in the conflict, particularly if the weapon were directed against sensitive infrastructure or facilities associated with Iran’s nuclear programme.
The plans reportedly form part of broader military preparations. The decision to launch further attacks, however, remains separate from the development of possible operational options.
Reuters reported that it could not independently verify CNN’s account. The Pentagon’s response was not available in AFP’s initial report, which said the agency had contacted the department for comment.
The distinction is important: consideration of a weapon in military planning does not establish that an attack has been approved or will take place.
What is the ‘Mother of All Bombs’?
The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb is one of the largest conventional weapons in the US arsenal. It is designed to produce an enormous blast effect over a wide area.
Despite its destructive power, the MOAB is not designed primarily as a deep-penetration weapon for destroying heavily fortified underground facilities.
A source familiar with the plans, quoted in CNN’s reporting, questioned its suitability for that purpose, describing it as a weapon more appropriate for large-area effects than deep penetration.
This limitation could be significant if the intended targets include nuclear-related facilities located beneath substantial layers of rock or reinforced structures.
Military planners would therefore need to consider the weapon’s capabilities alongside the physical characteristics of any proposed target. The available reporting does not establish which specific facilities, if any, would be selected for an attack.
Weapon was used against Islamic State in Afghanistan
The US military first used the MOAB in combat in April 2017, during an operation against Islamic State militants in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province.
According to AFP’s report, the strike targeted militant hideouts in a complex of tunnels and bunkers and killed more than 90 militants.
That operation demonstrated the weapon’s capacity to deliver a powerful blast against targets spread across a large area. It does not, however, establish that the same weapon would be effective against Iran’s underground nuclear infrastructure.
The distinction between a large-area blast weapon and a specialised deep-penetration munition is central to the current debate over the reported plans.
Questions remain over Iran’s underground nuclear sites
The potential targeting of Iranian nuclear-related facilities raises questions about the military effectiveness and wider consequences of any renewed offensive.
US and Israeli officials have said their campaign was intended to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Tehran has long denied pursuing a nuclear weapon.
The latest reports indicate that some officials familiar with US military planning have doubts about whether the MOAB would achieve Washington’s stated strategic objectives.
Those concerns are particularly relevant to facilities believed to be located deep underground. The weapon’s substantial blast capability does not automatically mean it can destroy installations protected by extensive rock or reinforced structures.
The reports do not provide independently verified details about the specific nuclear facilities being considered as targets or the extent to which the weapon could damage them.
Civilian casualties and escalation concerns
The possible use of such a large conventional weapon also raises concerns about civilian harm, particularly if strikes take place near populated areas or critical civilian infrastructure.
Energy facilities can play a role in electricity generation, industrial activity and essential public services. Attacks on such infrastructure can therefore have consequences beyond the immediate military objective.
The scale of any potential civilian impact would depend on the target, the weapon’s effects, surrounding population and other operational circumstances. The available reports do not provide enough information to estimate casualties from a hypothetical strike.
Any decision to attack would also raise questions about compliance with international humanitarian law, including the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack.
Diplomatic efforts remain at an impasse
The reported military preparations come as efforts to end the US-Iran conflict have struggled to make progress.
According to AFP’s account, diplomatic efforts had been stalled since the summer, following the outbreak of hostilities involving US and Israeli strikes on Iran in February 2026.
Washington has also shifted some attention towards economic pressure rather than sustained military operations in recent weeks, according to the report.
The possibility of renewed strikes underscores the uncertainty surrounding the next phase of the conflict. But the development of military options does not necessarily mean diplomatic efforts have ended or that a new offensive is imminent.
