Trump supporters divided over use of ‘bunker-buster' bomb in Iran

The Hill

4 hours ago

A massive 'bunker buster' bomb — and the ability to deliver it — is at the center of the Republican divide over direct U.S. involvement in striking Iran.
Supporters of U.S. involvement point to Iran's underground Fordow nuclear facility, warning that the U.S. cannot allow the uranium-enrichment facility to stay intact, absent a deal that would ensure Iran could never develop a nuclear weapon.
But Israel, which launched a campaign against Iran on Thursday, is limited in its ability to go after Fordow alone, and the U.S. has the unique capabilities to most effectively target it — capabilities that Israel does not have.
The latest and biggest 30,000-pound GBU-57 A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb, known as a 'bunker-buster,' would be most capable of reaching the nuclear site, which is believed to sit 80 meters below ground.
And while Israel has smaller 'bunker-buster' weapons that it can deploy, only American B-2 Spirit stealth bomber planes have been configured to lift and deliver such a large weapon.
To ensure the latest conflict ends with Iran's nuclear capabilities getting wiped out, some Republicans argue, the U.S. needs to step in with the bombers and bunker busters and target the Fordow site if other options are exhausted.
'If President Trump does not believe that negotiations are going to be fruitful, then we either have to fly that B-2 bomber or we've got to give the Israelis the ability to fly the B-2 bomber and drop these bombs,' Rep. David Kustoff (R-Tenn.), one of the few Jewish Republicans in Congress, said on CNN on Tuesday.
Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) said on Fox News Tuesday morning that Trump would 'absolutely' have his support to use the B-2 bomber to take out the Fordow facility if talks failed.
Trump and his administration initially distanced the U.S. from Israel's strikes on Iran, saying they provided only defensive support. But now, the possibility of targeting Fordow has moved from being a suggestion to a live question.
The New York Times and Axios reported Tuesday that Trump is seriously considering trying to take out the Fordow nuclear site.
Some of Trump's most ardent supporters, though, are warning against getting directly involved in the conflict at all. The worst-case scenario to them is a repeat of past U.S. posture in neighboring Iraq, where U.S.-driven regime change spurred by concerns over weapons of mass destruction turned into a failed nation-building exercise that thrust the region into a period of instability, giving rise to terrorist groups like ISIS.
Asked about the arguments that the U.S. should use its capabilities to bomb the Fordow site, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) — who has been one of the loudest Republican voices advocating against U.S. involvement in Iran — reiterated her position.
'My office has been monitoring calls from constituents in my district and they overwhelmingly support my stance on staying out of this conflict and foreign wars,' Greene said in a statement. 'Getting involved in another conflict won't bring down gas prices, lower grocery bills, or make rent more affordable. Me and my district support President Trump and his MAGA agenda, it's what we voted for in November, and foreign wars weren't a part of it.'
Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, a major figure in MAGA world who is close with Trump, was more explicit in his warning.
'America bombing Iran would be a direct escalation. Now, it would not be the same as bombing their oil fields, or even bombing the Supreme Leader. The most basic action would be, drop a bunker-buster on their underground nuclear plant — and some claim that's the only thing we have to do,' Kirk said.
'I'll say this to anyone that will listen: It's very hard to stop a war when you want, and it's hard to stop a war once you're in the midst of a war,' Kirk said, adding: 'If we were to bomb Fordow, Iran would likely and probably consider this to be an act of war. Would they respond and try to target US bases? Would they try and target US troops? Would they activate sleeper cells within the interior of the United States?'
Fueling the fears of the MAGA doves, some more hawkish Republicans have broached the subject of regime change — taking out Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — while talking about the prospect of assisting Israel in bombing Iran.
'Be all-in, President Trump, in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat. If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations,' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Fox News Monday night. 'But here's the bigger question: Wouldn't the world be better off if the Ayatollahs went away, and replaced by something better?'
'It's time to close that chapter soon, and start a new chapter in the Middle East, one of tolerance, hope, and peace,' Graham said.
Kirk slammed Graham on his radio show on Tuesday: 'That's pathologically insane, I'm sorry. It is. How do you know it's going to be better?'
Trump, for his part, has reiterated his stance that Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon — saying the regime should strike a deal, but not taking U.S. military action off the table.
In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump said that 'we know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding' — but that 'we are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.'
He followed up in another post: 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!'
The Associated Press contributed to this report.