The United States is considering whether to include the GBU-43/B MOAB in possible future strike plans against Iran, according to officials familiar with internal military discussions.
The option reportedly covers attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure and nuclear-related sites if President Donald Trump authorizes a renewed large-scale military operation.
No decision to use the weapon has been publicly announced, and the Pentagon has not confirmed that a MOAB strike is imminent.
The development comes after months of direct U.S. military operations against Iranian targets. U.S. Central Command says Operation Epic Fury began on February 28, 2026, and involved strikes against missile, drone, naval, air-defence and command-and-control facilities, according to a U.S. Central Command fact sheet.
Table of Contents
What the GBU-43/B MOAB is
The GBU-43/B MOAB, short for Massive Ordnance Air Blast, is a GPS-guided conventional bomb designed to create an extremely powerful blast over a broad area.
It is commonly known as the “Mother of All Bombs,” although that nickname is not its official designation.
The weapon weighs about 21,600 pounds and is carried aboard a specialized military aircraft rather than a standard fighter jet.
The bomb is not nuclear.
Its significance comes from its size, explosive force and ability to strike large surface areas, particularly exposed tunnel entrances, underground access points and other hardened positions near the surface.
The MOAB is not primarily a deep-penetration weapon.
That distinction matters in Iran, where some nuclear and military facilities are believed to be located deep underground or protected by layers of rock and concrete.
Why Iran’s facilities pose a difficult target
Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is spread across several sites, with some facilities built into mountains or heavily fortified areas.
A large air-blast bomb could damage entrances, support infrastructure and surface equipment, but its ability to destroy deeply buried facilities would depend on the depth, construction and exact location of the target.
That limitation is one reason military planners may consider the MOAB alongside other weapons rather than as a standalone solution.
The United States has previously used specialized bunker-penetrating munitions against underground targets, including during earlier operations involving Iran.
A strike on energy infrastructure would also carry different military and humanitarian consequences from an attack on an isolated tunnel complex.
Oil facilities, refineries, power plants and fuel-storage sites can be located near populated areas and are connected to regional supply chains.
The weapon’s only confirmed combat use
The United States used a GBU-43/B for the first time in combat on April 13, 2017, in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province.
U.S. forces targeted an Islamic State-Khorasan tunnel complex in Achin district.
The Department of Defense said the strike was intended to destroy the network while reducing risks to troops preparing to conduct clearing operations on the ground.
The 2017 strike was directed at a comparatively isolated militant position in mountainous terrain.
A possible operation against Iran would involve a far more capable state, a wider range of targets and significantly greater risks of regional retaliation.
What a MOAB decision could signal
Using the GBU-43/B against Iran would represent a significant escalation even if the bomb were dropped only once.
The weapon’s size and reputation would give the operation a strong psychological and political dimension in addition to its immediate military effect.
Iran could respond through missile or drone attacks, attacks on U.S. bases and regional partners, or actions affecting shipping and energy markets.
The potential for retaliation would be especially significant if the target were linked to Iran’s nuclear programme or strategic energy network.
The use of the weapon could also complicate diplomatic efforts.
A military strike may be intended to pressure Tehran back to negotiations, but a highly visible attack could instead reduce room for de-escalation and make reciprocal action more likely.
No public confirmation of an approved strike
The reported planning does not mean that a MOAB has been loaded for a mission or that an attack has been authorized.
Military planning routinely includes options that are never carried out.
The timing of any future operation would depend on presidential authorization, intelligence assessments, force positioning and the state of discussions between Washington and Tehran.
Public statements from U.S. officials may also change as those negotiations develop.
For now, the GBU-43/B remains a possible option rather than a confirmed weapon of an upcoming attack.
The central question is whether U.S. planners view its broad blast effect as useful against Iranian targets that may be too deep, too dispersed or too close to civilian infrastructure for the bomb’s characteristics to offer a decisive advantage.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the GBU-43/B MOAB?
It is a large GPS-guided conventional bomb formally known as the Massive Ordnance Air Blast weapon. It is commonly called the “Mother of All Bombs.”
Has the United States used a MOAB in combat before?
Yes. U.S. forces used one against an Islamic State-Khorasan tunnel complex in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, on April 13, 2017.
Is the MOAB a nuclear weapon?
No. It is a conventional, non-nuclear bomb, although it has a very large explosive yield and broad blast effect.
Could a MOAB destroy Iran’s deepest nuclear facilities?
Its effectiveness would depend on the depth, construction and protection of each site. The MOAB is designed for broad blast effects and is not primarily a deep-penetration weapon.
Has the United States approved a MOAB strike against Iran?
There is no public confirmation that such a strike has been approved. The weapon has reportedly been included in possible planning options, but planning does not mean an operation will occur.
Fact-Checked: Key historical and operational details were checked against U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Central Command information, while the reported planning update was reviewed against current public reporting.
Disclaimer: The reported strike option remains unconfirmed publicly and could change as military planning and diplomatic discussions develop.