
How bunker buster bombs work and how they could destroy Iran's Fordow nuclear site
As Israel's battle to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities continues, Iran's most heavily-protected nuclear facility at Fordow, two hours from Tehran, remains intact.
Many military analysts believe that a two-ton precision bunker buster developed by and in sole possession of the U.S. is the only means of eliminating the Fordow site, which some claim may be capable of producing a nuclear warhead in as little as two to three days.
Jonathan Ruhe, Director of Foreign Policy for JINSA, spoke with Fox News Digital about bunker-busters, and how Israel or the U.S. might use them to eliminate the Fordow nuclear threat.
Ruhe said bunker busters are munitions designed to use the force of gravity to "penetrate through any mixture of earth, rock, and concrete before the bomb itself then explodes" underground. The explosion may either take out the target fully, or "collapse the structure" around the target "without necessarily obliterating it," he explained.
Bunker busters come in multiple weight classes. Israel possesses 2,000- and 5,000-pound varieties. Only the U.S. possesses the 30,000-pound GBU-57 A/B Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP).
Developed under President George W. Bush, Ruhe says the MOP was "designed specifically" for targets like Fordow, where nuclear sites or command and control bunkers are hidden far underground.
Ruhe said that the number of munitions required to target Fordow depends on the depth of the facility. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies states that Fordow's facility is between 60 and 90 meters (196 to 295 feet) below ground. The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi told The Financial Times last week that the facility reaches 800 meters underground.
Ruhe said Grossi, who has been to the Fordow facility, may have been "trying to message, 'hey, military action is not the solution here.'"
The MOP is said to have a penetration depth of 200 feet. Ruhe said that given Fordow's distance underground and the difficulty of penetrating the rocky mountainside the site is dug into, the U.S. would likely use a technique called burrowing, in which a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber would "drop several MOPs in succession, one after the other."
Fordow poses a unique target. Ruhe said that pilots have to take into account the facility's multiple, narrow exit tunnels, and achieve the right angle of impact to penetrate the ground.
Though Israeli air dominance over Iran has eliminated the need for stealth air assets, Ruhe believes the stealth B-2 would be the only tool adequate for delivering the MOPs. Ruhe said timing constraints make the use of B-52 bombers "not relevant."
Additionally, Ruhe explained that talk of loaning B-2 bombers to the Israeli Air Force is "a dangerous distraction." Not only is there "0.0% chance" that the U.S. would give out this strategic capability, but Ruhe says training Israeli pilots to fly the B-2 would take several months.
Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital that "destroying [Fordow] from the air is a job only the U.S. can do."
Given that Israel is "very tactically inventive" and "very good at maximizing the capabilities they do have," Ruhe says that Israel could achieve its goals at Fordow without the MOP.
Not only did Ruhe offer the unlikely but not impossible scenario where Israel might "storm the site in a commando raid," but he said that Israel could use F-15s, escorted by F-35s, to deliver multiple 5,000-pound bunker busters over Fordow, utilizing the same burrowing tactic the U.S. would likely employ.
Such a strike, he admitted, would "achieve a more limited definition of success" than the MOP could.
The U.S. and Israel are likely to have different goals in targeting Fordow, Ruhe said. "Americans tend to think of obliterating targets," Ruhe said, whereas Israel would "probably be fine with saying they knocked back the operations there by a year or so."
Ruhe estimates that the bunker busters may not completely destroy the facility, but that it may be considered a success if it were to knock out the power source to Iranian centrifuges, or making "the air too polluted" for centrifuges to operate.
Israel has "successfully knocked out the other parts of Iran's fuel cycle" in Natanz and Isfahan, Ruhe said. "If you want to prevent a nuclear Iran, Fordow is a big part of that," Ruhe said. "But it's only just a part of what still needs to be done and thought about."
Fox News' Caitlin McFall contributed to this article.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
Three military possibilities for Iran that Trump is likely considering
Former DOD official Alex Plitsas joins Abby at the magic wall to talk through what he sees as three military options that President Trump is likely considering on Iran.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vowed to be a 'peacemaker' but foreign conflicts only ramping up on his watch
President Donald Trump, in January's inaugural address, predicted his "proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and a unifier." Six months into his second term, conflicts are raging on three fronts around the world. Iran and Israel are trading strikes amid fears of an all-out war in which the U.S. could become involved. Russia carried out one of its deadliest attacks on Ukraine's capital in months overnight earlier this week. In Gaza, people are struggling to find food and dozens have been killed in recent incidents near aid locations. "He's clearly not a peacemaker, but he's not a warmaker, either," Aaron David Miller, a State Department diplomat in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations -- now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- told ABC News. MORE: Trump on his 'unconditional surrender' demand to Iran: 'I've had it' Trump vowed speedy ends to the Israel-Hamas war and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, two conflicts that broke out in the previous administration that Trump has labeled "Biden's wars." On the campaign trail, he often railed against "endless wars" and mused that he could resolve the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours -- a comment that once in office he walked back as an "exaggeration." "He has made comments on all of them that this could be done quickly or easily and that there are solutions to these three problems," Miller said. "And yet, he has not been successful in even identifying what I would consider to be a potentially effective strategy for managing or let alone resolving them. And therein lies the challenge." While Trump has made new diplomatic efforts a priority amid his flurry of initiatives during his first months, he's expressed increasing frustration with the foreign leaders involved and continually condemns what he calls "the death" the conflicts have wrought. "He has followed through on his promises to try," said Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations who worked as special representative for Iran and Venezuela in Trump's first administration. "He has tried in Ukraine and he has tried in Gaza and he's tried in Iran, and none of them has worked out." One claim of success on the foreign policy front that Trump frequently makes, and says he can replicate by pushing trade deals, is how he says he stopped the recent fighting between India and Pakistan. Trump's claimed he hasn't received enough credit: "I got it stopped. I don't think I had one story." Trump departed a Group of Seven summit early, citing tensions in the Middle East and ordering his national security team to huddle in the Situation Room upon his return to Washington. He's received a range of options, including using U.S. military assets to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump didn't rule out the possibility, telling reporters on Wednesday: "I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do." The president's messaging on the conflict has been mixed. MORE: Diplomatic breakthrough or military action? Trump's choice on Iran: ANALYSIS Trump had publicly warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu any strikes could derail talks between the U.S. and Iran on a nuclear deal. But after Israel's attacks last Friday on Tehran, Trump seemed to change his tune, telling ABC News they were "excellent" and saying they could drive Tehran to the negotiating table. In the last few days, he's floated sending Vice President JD Vance and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to speak with the Iranians while also demanding Iran's "unconditional surrender." Officials have said the U.S. has not been involved in Israel's offensive, while Trump claimed "we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran." "His words and deeds are chaotic and inconsistent," Miller said of Trump. "And the notion that he's unpredictable and that helps him certainly hasn't proven to be the case so far in these three conflicts." The White House and Vice President Vance have defended Trump's position on Iran, saying he's long been clear and consistent that the nation can't have a nuclear weapon. Abrams concedes Trump's messaging might be "confusing" but is representative of a rapidly changing situation on the ground in Tehran. "One thing he's trying to make clear to the Ayatollah is that if he attacks American ships from bases he's done, that's the end of the regime. That is something any president should do," Abrams said. As the administration ramps up its focus on Israel and Iran, other areas are at a standstill. "On Gaza, no one has come up with a workable plan," Abrams said. "It's a wicked problem. [Joe] Biden didn't come up with a plan in his 15 months after October 7 and Trump hasn't come up with a workable one." An initial three-phrase peace deal aimed at ending the war in Gaza, which was brokered by members of both the Biden and Trump administrations, collapsed in March. Since then, proposals for a temporary ceasefire have fallen through. In Eastern Europe, Trump took a different approach than his predecessor in engaging with both the leaders of Ukraine and Russia, often saying his personal relationship with Vladimir Putin would produce results. Some progress appeared to be made when Russian and Ukrainian officials held their first face-to-face meeting since the invasion began back in mid-May. But talks have since stalled, with the Trump administration taking a step back while Ukraine and Russia have been intensifying attacks in recent weeks. "The president did a lot of huffing and puffing on the need for peace, but he hasn't been prepared to really push Putin in that direction," said Stephen Sestanovich, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as the State Department's ambassador-at-large for the former Soviet Union. MORE: Trump attacks Putin over Ukraine onslaught but will he impose consequences? William Taylor, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during the Obama administration currently serving as a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said Putin is not going to be swayed diplomatically. "Putin is going to be swayed by a combination of military and economic pressure," Taylor said. "So President Trump should do that." No new commitments have been made for U.S. arms deliveries to Ukraine and no new sanctions have been placed on Russia, however, and there are now reports that the Trump administration disbanded a group focused on pressuring Russia. "For someone who claims to have mastered the art of the deal, this is a pretty spectacular failure," Sestanovich said of Trump's approach to the Russia-Ukraine war so far. Anna Kelly, White House Deputy press secretary, responded to the criticism, saying in a statement, 'President Trump is leading the world in ending this brutal war, which he inherited from his incompetent predecessor Joe Biden. No one cares about the opinions of armchair quarterback 'experts' who have done nothing to make the world safer.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Mike Novogratz on a Shadow Fed, Markets, Stablecoin Bill
Billionaire Michael Novogratz, CEO of Galaxy Digital Holdings Ltd., says the idea of President Donald Trump nominating a shadow Federal Reserve Chair would be "not wise" and "very bad for the country." He also discusses the potential impact of a large interest rate cut and the market implications of the US getting involved in the Israel-Iran conflict, and what the passage of the stablecoin bill means to his firm and the crypto market.