What to know about bunker-buster bombs and Iran's Fordo nuclear facility
BANGKOK (AP) — If the U.S. decides to support Israel more directly in its attack on Iran, one option for Washington would be to provide the 'bunker-buster' bombs believed necessary to significantly damage the Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant, built deeply into a mountain.
Such a bomb would have to be dropped from an American aircraft, which could have wide-ranging ramifications, including jeopardizing any chance of Iran engaging in Trump's desired talks on its nuclear program. Israeli officials have also suggested that there are other options for it to attack Fordo as it seeks to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities.
But aside from a commando attack on the ground or a nuclear strike, the bunker buster bomb seems the most likely option.
What is the bunker-buster bomb?
'Bunker buster' is a broad term used to describe bombs that are designed to penetrate deep below the surface before exploding. In this case, it refers to the latest GBU-57 A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb in the American arsenal. The roughly 30,000 pound (13,600 kilogram) precision-guided bomb is designed to attack deeply buried and hardened bunkers and tunnels, according to the U.S. Air Force.
It's believed to be able to penetrate about 200 feet (61 meters) below the surface before exploding, and the bombs can be dropped one after another, effectively drilling deeper and deeper with each successive blast.
The bomb carries a conventional warhead, but the International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran is producing highly enriched uranium at Fordo, raising the possibility that nuclear material could be released into the area if the GBU-57 A/B were used to hit the facility. However, Israeli strikes at another Iranian nuclear site, Natanz, on a centrifuge site have caused contamination only at the site itself, not the surrounding area, the IAEA has said.
How tough a target is Fordo?
Fordo is Iran's second nuclear enrichment facility after Natanz, its main facility. So far, Israeli strikes aren't known to have damaged Natanz's underground enrichment hall, nor have the Israelis targeted tunnels the Iranians are digging nearby.
Fordo is smaller than Natanz, and is built into the side of a mountain near the city of Qom, about 60 miles (95 kilometers) southwest of Tehran. Construction is believed to have started around 2006 and it became first operational in 2009 — the same year Tehran publicly acknowledged its existence.
In addition to being an estimated 80 meters (260 feet) under rock and soil, the site is reportedly protected by Iranian and Russian surface-to-air missile systems. Those air defenses, however, likely have already been struck in the Israeli campaign.
Still, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the goal of attacking Iran was to eliminate its missile and nuclear program, which he described as an existential threat to Israel, and officials have said Fordo was part of that plan.
"This entire operation ... really has to be completed with the elimination of Fordo,' Yechiel Leiter, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., told Fox News on Friday.
Why does the U.S. need to be involved?
In theory, the GBU-57 A/B could be dropped by any bomber capable of carrying the weight, but at the moment the U.S. has only configured and programed its B-2 Spirit stealth bomber to deliver the bomb, according to the Air Force.
The B-2 is only flown by the Air Force, and is produced by Northrop Grumman.
According to the manufacturer, the B-2 can carry a payload of 40,000 pounds (18,000 kilograms) but the U.S. Air Force has said it has successfully tested the B-2 loaded with two GBU-57 A/B bunker busters — a total weight of some 60,000 pounds (27,200 kilograms).
The strategic long-range heavy bomber has a range of about 7,000 miles (11,000 kilometers) without refueling and 11,500 miles (18,500 kilometers) with one refueling, and can reach any point in the world within hours, according to Northrop Grumman.
Whether the U.S. would get involved is another matter.
At the G7 meeting in Canada, Trump was asked what it would take for Washington to become involved militarily and he said: 'I don't want to talk about that.'
In a weekend interview with ABC News, Israeli Ambassador Leiter was asked about the possibility of the U.S. helping attack Fordo and he emphasized Israel has only asked the U.S. for defensive help.
'We have a number of contingencies ... which will enable us to deal with Fordo,' he said.
'Not everything is a matter of, you know, taking to the skies and bombing from afar."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
32 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is flirting with strikes in Iran. That could be a tough sell at home.
For years now, Americans have been trending in a more isolationist, anti-war direction. Particularly on the right, the ascendant view is that the world's problems are not necessarily ours. Iran could be about to test that. President Donald Trump has in recent hours employed increasingly bold rhetoric about involving the United States in Israel's attacks on Iran. On Tuesday afternoon, he wrote on Truth Social that 'we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He added that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is an 'easy target,' and said, 'We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He called for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.' These comments came as CNN reported he's indeed quickly warming to using the US military to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump has saber-rattled for effect before, so it's possible this is him employing the 'madman theory' of foreign policy again. But it's also evident that we're closer to a major new military confrontation than we've been in two decades. So how might Americans view it if Trump did involve the US military offensively? It's complicated. Americans have in recent years expressed plenty of worry about Iran and even support for hypothetical military strikes. But there is reason to believe military action today could be a bridge too far – for the same reasons Americans have been drifting away from foreign interventions. Much of the polling here is dated, and views are of course subject to change based on fresh circumstances. A 2019 Fox News poll is the most recent high-quality survey to ask directly about a situation like the one Trump is contemplating. And it found a significant level of support for using action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. American voters favored that 53% to 30% – a 23-point margin. The question from there is whether Americans would view that as indeed the purpose here. This is how Trump has billed potential strikes, saying Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon. But as recently as March of this year, his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified quite the opposite. She said that the intel community had assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump disputed Gabbard's account on Tuesday, but it's not difficult to see her words – and US intelligence assessments about the lack of imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapon – becoming a problem. That's particularly because America's last major military foray, into neighboring Iraq, became so unpopular due how the Bush administration exaggerated the threat it posed. Americans have appeared open to military action in theory. The question from there is how immediate they view that threat as being. Some surveys indicate Americans do tend to view Iran as a major threat – and on a bipartisan basis: The same Fox poll showed 57% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans called Iran a 'real national security threat.' A 2023 Fox poll showed more than 6 in 10 Democrats and about 8 in 10 Republicans were at least 'very' concerned about Iran getting a nuke. And Gallup polling last year showed 93% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats described Iran developing nuclear weapons as a 'critical threat' to the vital interests of the United States. But other surveys suggest that perceived problem might not rank particularly high. Pew Research Center polling last year showed many more Americans felt China (64%) and Russia (59%) were major military threats than Iran (42%). Pew data last year also found only 37% of Americans said limiting Iran's power and influence should be a 'top priority.' It ranked lower than limiting Russia and China's power and about the same as North Korea's – while also falling below limiting climate change. And back in 2020, just 14% of Americans thought Iran was such a threat that it required immediate military action, according to a CBS News poll conducted by SSRS. A huge majority felt it was a threat that could be contained (64%), while 17% said it wasn't a threat. All of these numbers could change if Trump goes down the path toward the US hitting Iran. He has shown an ability to get Republicans, in particular, to buy into pretty much whatever he says. (Though some prominent conservative voices like Tucker Carlson have strongly rejected the idea of strikes, meaning there could even be some resistance there). Anyway, it's likely we'd see these numbers polarize. But US intelligence assessments had concluded that not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon — in contrast to Israeli warnings — but that it was also up to three years from being able to produce and deliver one to a target, CNN reported Tuesday. Trump's history with Iran also looms here. In 2020, he launched a controversial strike that killed a top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani. And polling often showed people leaned in favor of the strike. But polling also showed Americans said by double digits that the strike made us less safe domestically. And a CNN poll at the time showed Americans disapproved of Trump's handling of the situation with Iran also by double digits, 53-42%. All of which indicates Americans are concerned about blowback and don't have a particularly high degree of faith in Trump's Iran policies. The sum total of the data suggest that, while Americans are concerned about the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they don't necessarily view it as an immediate problem necessitating the use of the US military. If someone asks you if you are worried about a nuclear foreign country, of course that sounds scary. You might even sign off on a hypothetical in which US military might be needed to combat that threat you fear. But it doesn't mean you think that's imminent enough to warrant putting US servicemembers in harm's way and setting off a major Middle Eastern war, today. And there's plenty of reason to believe Trump could – or at least should – approach this idea cautiously.
Time Magazine
33 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What to Know About the Trump Administration's Reversal on ICE Raids Guidance
U.S. immigration officials will continue conducting immigration raids at farms, hotels, and restaurants, marking an apparently rapid reversal of guidance issued last week to exempt those worksites from the Trump Administration's mass deportations. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials told staff in a call on Monday that agents must conduct raids at farms, hotels, and restaurants, two people with knowledge of the call told The Washington Post. Multiple news outlets, including CNN and Reuters, have since confirmed the news. 'There will be no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine ICE's efforts,' Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, told the Post. 'Worksite enforcement remains a cornerstone of our efforts to safeguard public safety, national security and economic stability.' Trump's pledge to 'protect our Farmers' President Donald Trump has launched a mass-deportation operation since he took office for a second time in January, sparking outrage from Democratic lawmakers and prompting thousands of demonstrators to take to the streets to protest ICE raids targeting undocumented immigrants. Trump has recently faced backlash from agriculture and hospitality executives over his hardline immigration agenda, the Post reported. On Thursday, he posted on Truth Social that 'changes are coming.' 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' Trump said in his post. 'In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!' What changed—or didn't Despite the public pledge, a White House official told the Post at the time that the White House hadn't proposed any real policy changes. But three U.S. officials familiar with the situation told The New York Times that the Administration had instructed ICE officials to mostly halt raids and arrests at those worksites. 'Effective today, please hold on all work site enforcement investigations/operations on agriculture (including aquaculture and meat packing plants), restaurants and operating hotels,' Tatum King, a senior ICE official, said in an email that was sent out as guidance to regional leaders of the branch of ICE that typically works on criminal investigations, as reported by the Times. Monday's reversal of that guidance comes after Trump posted on Truth Social over the weekend that he wants to 'expand efforts to detain and deport illegal Aliens in America's largest cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside.'
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EPA will revisit Biden-era ban on the last type of asbestos used in US
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency told a federal appeals court it will reconsider the Biden administration's ban on the last type of asbestos used in the United States to determine whether it went 'beyond what is necessary." Asbestos is linked to tens of thousands of deaths annually and causes mesothelioma as well as other cancers. It has been largely phased out in the United States. Last year, the Biden administration sought to finish the decades-long fight by banning chrysotile asbestos. At the time, the EPA called it a milestone in the fight against cancer. The EPA on Monday said in a court filing that it would reconsider the Biden administration's rule over roughly the next 30 months. The agency said the Toxic Substances Control Act requires it to evaluate a chemical's risk and the consequences of restricting it. Now, officials will look at whether parts of the ban 'went beyond what is necessary to eliminate the unreasonable risk and whether alternative measures — such as requiring permanent workplace protection measures — would eliminate the unreasonable risk,' according to a court declaration by Lynn Ann Dekleva, a senior official in EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Chrysotile asbestos is found in products like brake blocks, asbestos diaphragms and sheet gaskets and was banned under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was broadened in 2016. When the ban was announced, there were eight U.S. facilities that used asbestos diaphragms in the chlor-alkali sector for the manufacture of chlorine and sodium hydroxide, chemicals commonly used as water disinfectants. The facilities were given at least five years to make the change. The development was first reported by The New York Times. Advocates blasted the move as weakening prohibitions against a deadly carcinogen. 'This latest move by Administrator Lee Zeldin and EPA is yet another alarming signal that this administration is operating without limits as they dole out favors to polluter lobbyists without regard for the health and well-being of people living in the US,' said Michelle Roos, executive director of the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit. Zeldin has announced dozens of deregulatory actions in the first months of the Trump administration and former top industry officials are in key EPA positions — Dekleva, for example, used to work at the American Chemistry Council, which was among the groups that filed the court challenge against the Biden administration's ban. Recently, the EPA proposed a rollback of greenhouse gas rules for coal plants. The American Chemistry Council said it supports the agency's move to ensure rules 'use a risk-based approach consistent with the best available science.' The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Tuesday. ___ The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP's environmental coverage, visit Michael Phillis, The Associated Press
