New U.S. military strike plans reportedly include the potential use of the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), commonly known as the "Mother of All Bombs," against targets in Iran. According to CNN, which cited U.S. officials familiar with the planning, the options include strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure and suspected nuclear facilities should President Donald Trump authorize renewed operations. The reports have raised questions about the weapon's capabilities and whether its inclusion signals an impending military escalation.

However, the Pentagon routinely develops contingency plans covering a wide range of potential military operations. These plans provide civilian leadership with options involving different weapons, targets and operational scenarios. The existence of a strike package, even one identifying a specific weapon, does not establish that its use has been approved or that an operation is imminent.

What Is the MOAB?

Developed in 2003, the GBU-43/B is a GPS-guided conventional bomb weighing approximately 21,600 pounds, including a BLU-120/B warhead weighing roughly 18,700 pounds. The approximately 30-foot-long weapon is delivered from a specially configured military transport aircraft and is designed to generate extensive blast effects over a large area. Unlike dedicated bunker-busting munitions, the MOAB primarily relies on explosive force rather than penetrating deep into hardened structures.

Its intended applications include exposed military formations, surface installations, obstacles and certain tunnel or cave networks. Although its explosive power can cause significant destruction, effectiveness depends on the target's construction, depth, surrounding terrain and vulnerability to blast pressure. Its size alone does not make it suitable for every underground target.

Previous U.S. Combat Use

The United States first employed the MOAB in combat on April 13, 2017, against an ISIS-K tunnel complex in Afghanistan's Nangarhar province. The strike was conducted using an MC-130 aircraft and was intended to destroy militant positions, underground passages and defensive obstacles that complicated operations by U.S. and Afghan forces. American military officials described the weapon as appropriate for the specific conditions at the target site.

The operation also demonstrated the distinction between destroying relatively shallow underground infrastructure and penetrating heavily reinforced facilities buried beneath substantial layers of rock. While the MOAB can produce destructive blast effects against certain tunnel systems, that does not necessarily translate into comparable effectiveness against deeply buried nuclear installations.

MOAB Versus the GBU-57 Bunker-Buster

The MOAB differs substantially from the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a roughly 30,000-pound weapon specifically developed to attack hardened and deeply buried targets. The GBU-57 uses its mass and penetrating design to reach underground structures before detonation, rather than relying primarily on widespread surface blast effects.

The United States employed 14 GBU-57 bombs during Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025, using B-2 Spirit stealth bombers to strike Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz. The operation demonstrated an existing American capability specifically intended for deeply buried targets, although the ultimate effectiveness of any strike depends on the facility's construction and the accuracy of available intelligence.

What the Reported Plans Actually Indicate

The MOAB's reported inclusion in potential operations against Iran is noteworthy, but it should not be interpreted as confirmation of an impending strike. Military planners are expected to develop multiple courses of action, including options that may ultimately be rejected because of operational limitations, collateral damage concerns or strategic considerations. The Pentagon has emphasized that it prepares for a broad range of operational scenarios under direction from civilian leadership.

The reported consideration of the MOAB also raises questions about its intended role. Against exposed infrastructure, its extensive blast effects could produce considerable destruction, while its ability to neutralize deeply buried Iranian nuclear facilities would be substantially more limited. The weapon's large affected area would also require careful consideration of civilian exposure and damage to surrounding infrastructure.

Ultimately, the distinction between military planning and operational authorization remains central to understanding the reports. The Pentagon maintains the capacity to evaluate and prepare a wide range of military options, but their existence does not establish that the United States intends to execute them. Any decision to employ the MOAB would depend on presidential authorization, operational objectives, target characteristics and the anticipated military and civilian consequences.