Can the B-2 Stealth Bomber Destroy Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Facility?

Can the B-2 Stealth Bomber Destroy Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Facility?

Can the B-2 Stealth Bomber Destroy Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Facility?
Can the B-2 Stealth Bomber Destroy Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Facility?

The question of whether a U.S. B-2 Spirit stealth bomber can destroy Iran’s Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant has significant military and geopolitical implications. Fordow is a hardened underground nuclear site, and disabling it would require penetrating massive layers of earth and rock. This article explores the B-2’s technical capabilities (stealth and payload), the potency of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator “bunker buster” bomb, the construction and defenses of the Fordow facility, and the potential consequences of an attack. We also compare if Israel could carry out a similar strike and review past drills and statements on attacking Fordow.

B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber: Capabilities and Role

A B-2 Spirit stealth bomber in flight. The B-2’s flying-wing design and special coatings make it extremely difficult for enemy radars to detect, allowing it to penetrate heavily defended airspace.

The Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit is a long-range, heavy stealth bomber designed to infiltrate the world’s most advanced air defenses. Key features of the B-2 include:

  • Stealth Technology: The B-2’s flying wing shape, radar-absorbent materials, and internal weapon bays give it an exceptionally low radar cross-section. It was designed for deep penetration strikes, using stealth to avoid detection and interception by enemy air defenses. (en.wikipedia.org). This allows a B-2 to slip past radar networks (like Iran’s) to reach well-defended targets such as Fordow.
  • Range and Endurance: The B-2 has intercontinental range and can be refueled in mid-air, enabling it to reach targets anywhere in the world from its bases. It often operates from Whiteman AFB in Missouri, but can forward-deploy closer to the Middle East if needed. (For example, deployments to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean or Guam have been discussed as signals of possible action, since those locations put the B-2 within striking distance of Iran.)
  • Payload Capacity: Despite its sleek profile, the B-2 carries a massive payload internally. It has two bomb bays and is officially rated to carry up to 40,000 lb (18,000 kg) of ordnance. By carrying weapons internally, the B-2 avoids external hardpoints that would increase its radar signature. It can deliver a variety of precision-guided munitions, including both nuclear weapons and conventional bombs. Notably, the B-2 is the only aircraft in the U.S. inventory capable of deploying the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) – the Pentagon’s largest “bunker buster” bomb. Each B-2 can carry two GBU-57 MOPs (one per bomb bay) for attacking hardened underground targets.

In summary, the B-2’s combination of stealth and large payload makes it uniquely suited for a high-stakes mission like a strike on Fordow. A B-2 bomber Iran strike scenario would count on the jet’s low observability to evade Iranian air defenses and deliver bunker-busting bombs precisely on target. As we discuss next, it is the platform specifically designed to carry the heaviest bunker-buster needed for Fordow, something no other service currently offers.

The Massive Ordnance Penetrator (GBU-57) Bunker Buster Bomb

Destroying a deeply buried facility like Fordow would likely require the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) – the U.S. Air Force’s most powerful conventional bunker-buster bomb. This weapon was developed with sites like Fordow in mind. Officials and experts have indicated that the 30,000-pound GBU-57 is the only weapon capable of potentially destroying Fordow’s fortified underground halls(aljazeera.com). Some key characteristics of the MOP include:

  • Extreme Weight and Size: The MOP weighs in around 30,000 lb (13,600 kg) and is over 20 ft (6.2 m) long. Of that weight, about 5,300 lb (~2,400 kg) is explosive fill. It carries a massive warhead (around 6,000 lb or 2,700 kg of high explosive) encased in a high-strength alloy steel penetrator. This enormous mass and hardened casing are designed to punch through soil, rock, and reinforced concrete before detonation.
  • Penetration Capability: The MOP is reported to be able to penetrate up to about 60 m (200 ft) of earth or roughly 18 m (60 ft) of reinforced concrete before exploding. In tests, it has shown it can drill deep into hardened targets that would defeat smaller bunker-busters. (The bomb uses a smart fuse to detonate at the optimal moment underground.) However, it’s important to note these figures can vary depending on the target’s geology and construction. If the concrete or rock is stronger than usual (Iran has reportedly developed ultra-high-strength concrete >30,000 psi, far above normal, the effective penetration could be less. There is also the challenge of accuracy under GPS jamming and the possibility the bomb’s trajectory could deflect if the target’s underground structure causes it to yaw. (en.wikipedia.org.)
  • Delivery Platform – the B-2: As mentioned, only the B-2 Spirit can carry the MOP due to its size and weight. The B-2 can haul two MOP bombs per mission. The U.S. Air Force has stated that multiple MOPs could be dropped in sequence on the exact same impact point – either by a single B-2 making repeated attack runs or by multiple B-2s striking one after another. This “multiple-hit” tactic is meant to burrow progressively deeper into a target like Fordow: the first bomb clears some of the overburden, and follow-up bombs penetrate further, compounding the damage. Essentially, sequential strikes can amplify the overall impact on a deeply buried bunker (aljazeera.com.) This tactic might be necessary if one bomb alone cannot reach and destroy the deepest sections.
  • Track Record: The MOP entered service in 2011 as the successor to smaller bunker busters like the 5,000 lb GBU-28 used in the Gulf War. It was specifically fast-tracked because intelligence showed Iran digging key nuclear facilities like Fordow into mountain sides. In fact, the U.S. long maintained a requirement for a weapon that could reach “deeply buried facilities,” and by 2007–2010 development of the 30,000 lb penetrator was underway. At least 20 MOP bombs were produced by mid-2010s(en.wikipedia.org). Fortunately, these bombs have never been used in combat to date – they remain a deterrent and option of last resort for targets exactly like Fordow.

Overall, the GBU-57 MOP is a formidable tool for attacking Iran’s underground nuclear site at Fordow. On paper, its penetration capability is on the order of the estimated depth of Fordow’s bunkers. But it is not a sure bet – even U.S. officials acknowledge uncertainty about whether the MOP can “reliably destroy” a site as deeply buried as Fordow. That depends on just how deep and hardened the facility truly is, and whether a combination of multiple strikes would be used. To better understand that, let’s look at what is known about Fordow’s construction, depth and defenses.

Inside Fordow: A Hardened Underground Nuclear Facility

Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (often simply called Fordow) is Iran’s second-largest uranium enrichment site (after Natanz). It has been built to survive a military onslaught. Key facts about the Fordow facility include:

  • Location: The plant is buried in the side of a mountain near the village of Fordo, about 95 km (60 miles) southwest of Tehran and not far from the holy city of Qom. Being so close to Qom (a major center of Shia Islamic scholarship) means any attack risks political and religious fallout if collateral damage occurs (en.wikipedia.org).
  • Depth and Construction: Fordow was specifically designed to withstand airstrikes. It is reportedly buried roughly 80–90 meters (260–300 feet) underground, shielded by layers of rock and soil. Some sources even suggest parts of it could be up to 110 m deep. This immense depth, inside a mountain, makes it largely immune to conventional bunker-buster bombs (euronews.com). Western intelligence learned Iran began constructing Fordow in secret around 2006, and it became operational by 2009 (its existence was revealed that year). The enrichment halls are tunneled into solid rock. Such geological protection is why a weapon as powerful as the GBU-57 MOP – with ~60 m earth penetration – would be needed to have any chance of collapsing the underground chambers.
  • Purpose: Fordow’s role is to enrich uranium. Iran initially used it to enrich uranium to 5% purity, later increasing to 20% by 2011. After the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, enrichment at Fordow paused as the site was to be converted for research. However, following the U.S. withdrawal from the deal in 2018, Iran resumed enrichment at Fordow, including producing 60% enriched uranium (a short step from weapons-grade). As of early 2023, Iran had even produced traces of 83.7% enriched uranium at Fordow (very near weapons-grade), according to IAEA reports (csis.org). This underscores Fordow’s centrality to Iran’s nuclear ambitions – and why it is considered a “crown jewel” target by adversaries (reuters.com).
  • Defenses: Knowing Fordow would be a prime target, Iran has ringed the site with air defenses. The facility was once a Revolutionary Guard base and is protected by advanced surface-to-air missile systems. In 2016, Iran deployed Russian-made S-300 SAM batteries around Fordow. The S-300 (and Iran’s indigenous systems) provide a layered air defense to shoot down incoming aircraft or guided bombs. However, these defenses may be of limited use against a stealth bomber – the B-2 was designed to evade exactly such high-end SAM systems. There are unconfirmed reports that during recent tensions, Israel may have already struck some of the air defense sites guarding Fordow. Still, any B-2 strike on Fordow would likely be planned with suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) support and the element of surprise at its core. Additionally, the underground nature of Fordow means even if bombs hit the surface, the subterranean centrifuge halls might survive unless the bombs penetrate directly. Indeed, when Israel allegedly conducted airstrikes on Fordow’s vicinity in 2025, satellite imagery suggested above-ground structures were damaged, but the underground chambers were not breached (en.wikipedia.org).

In summary, Fordow presents a daunting target: an underground nuclear site hardened by tens of meters of rock, with modern air defenses shielding it. It was built by Iran specifically “deep in a mountain” to withstand the kind of bombardment that destroyed less protected sites like Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 or even Iran’s own above-ground Natanz facility (en.wikipedia.orgeuronews.com). Fordow’s very design is a direct response to Israeli and U.S. threats – which raises the bar for any attacker.

Stealth vs. Defenses: Can a B-2 Strike Succeed?

Given the above, can a B-2 Spirit armed with MOP bombs destroy Fordow? Technically, it is possible but not guaranteed. Several factors come into play:

  • Infiltrating Iranian Airspace: A B-2’s stealth gives it a strong chance to penetrate to the target. Iranian radar networks (even with Russian S-300s) would struggle to detect a B-2 until it’s too late, if at all. The bomber would likely fly at night, use deceptive routing (possibly coming in from an unexpected direction), and remain at high altitude. The B-2’s low radar cross-section and ability to fly undetected were intended exactly for scenarios like this (en.wikipedia.org). This means Iran might not be able to engage the bomber with SAMs or fighters, allowing it to reach Fordow’s vicinity and drop its bombs. By contrast, non-stealthy aircraft (like a B-52 or Israeli F-15) would set off alarms and face high risk of being shot down well before reaching a target near Tehran. Stealth is thus a critical advantage.
  • Effect of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator: The MOP warhead, if delivered accurately, would hit the mountain at supersonic speed and bore down toward the bunker. Here, the question is whether one or two such hits can crush Fordow’s enrichment halls. Fordow is ~80+ meters deep; the MOP can penetrate ~60 meters of earth (less through hard rock or concrete) (en.wikipedia.org). This suggests that a single MOP detonation might not completely collapse such a deep facility – it could severely damage it, but perhaps not fully destroy all of it. To maximize damage, the U.S. could use multiple MOPs. The Air Force openly talks about dropping “sequential” bunker busters so that each opens up a deeper path for the next. In a real strike, this could mean two bombs from one B-2 hitting the exact same spot moments apart, or coordinated strikes by two B-2s releasing a pair each in rapid succession. The goal would be to achieve compounded penetration (essentially turning the facility’s own tunnels into channels for the blast). If three or four MOPs were all accurately delivered on Fordow’s coordinates, the cumulative effect could potentially pulverize the underground structure even at ~80–100 m depth. However, such an operation would be complex and unprecedented. It requires exquisite targeting (to hit the same point repeatedly) and absolute air superiority. Additionally, as of the early 2010s, the MOP lacked a void-sensing fuse to detonate in an open cavity, meaning it might only explode after boring to a stop – a limitation that could reduce effectiveness if the bomb plunges through an empty hall and out the other side. Advances may have been made since then, but those details are classified.
  • Uncertainty and Testing: U.S. military planners are not 100% certain of success. In fact, sources acknowledge “it is unclear” if even the GBU-57 can reliably take out Fordow (en.wikipedia.org). The U.S. has likely conducted simulations and possibly tested the MOP on proxy targets (there were tests dropping MOPs from B-52s during development (en.wikipedia.org). Yet, without actually bombing a site like Fordow, one can’t be sure. There’s also the possibility that Iran has further hardened the facility (for example, installing shock absorbers, extra internal reinforcement, or simply tunneling even deeper over time). In a worst-case scenario, a MOP strike might only seal the entrances or damage parts of the complex, rather than utterly demolish it. Iran could potentially repair and resume activity if the core enrichment chambers remain intact or are not completely collapsed. Thus, while a B-2/MOP strike would likely put Fordow out of commission for some time, it may not permanently eliminate it unless followed by other measures (ground assessment, repeated strikes, etc.).

In summary, a B-2 bomber armed with MOPs could destroy or at least significantly cripple Fordow, given its unique capabilities. It’s the only conventional option that stands a chance: “Experts believe only the United States possesses bombs powerful enough to destroy Fordow’s underground chambers – specifically the GBU-57 MOP”(euronews.com). The stealth bomber can reach the target, and the huge bunker-busters can penetrate to great depths. However, it is not a trivial undertaking. Success might require multiple precise hits and even then is not assured. U.S. officials have planned for this contingency, going so far as to pre-position bombers. For instance, in June 2025 during heightened tensions, the U.S. deployed B-2 bombers to a forward base (Guam), reinforcing the possibility of a strike on Fordow – since the B-2 can carry the 30,000-pound bombs needed for such deeply buried targets(reuters.com). This move was taken as a signal that the Pentagon was readying its unique capability if ordered.

Ultimately, whether the B-2 can destroy Fordow depends not just on physics and engineering, but on strategy: how many bombs, delivered in what way, and the definition of success (fully collapsing the site vs. merely shutting it down). What’s clear is that the B-2/MOP combination is the only conventional means available to even attempt this job. Anything less would almost certainly fail to reach Fordow’s depth.

Geopolitical Implications of Striking Fordow

Even if a B-2 strike on Fordow is militarily feasible, the geopolitical fallout would be enormous. Fordow is not just a bunker; it’s a focal point of Iran’s nuclear program and a symbol of its defiance. An American decision to bomb it would carry grave risks of escalation:

  • War with Iran and Regional Escalation: Iran would almost certainly view a U.S. attack on its soil as an act of war (if such a war isn’t already ongoing). Tehran’s likely response would be fierce and multi-faceted. We could expect missile and drone attacks against U.S. bases in the Middle East (in Iraq, the Gulf states, etc.), strikes on U.S. naval vessels, and attempts to hit Israel as well. The conflict could quickly expand into a regional war, drawing in Iranian proxy forces across the region (atlanticcouncil.org). For example, Iranian-allied groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon might launch rockets at Israel, and militias in Iraq or Syria could target American troops stationed there. The U.S. military presence in places like the UAE, Qatar, or Bahrain could also come under missile threat. In a notable warning, Yemen’s Houthi rebels (aligned with Iran) explicitly threatened to target U.S. ships in the Red Sea if the U.S. joins attacks on Iran(euronews.com). This illustrates how a strike on Fordow could unleash retaliation far beyond the immediate target, endangering international shipping lanes and multiple countries’ security.
  • Global Economic Shock: Iran might retaliate by trying to close the Strait of Hormuz (through which a significant fraction of the world’s oil exports flow) or by attacking oil infrastructure in the Gulf. Any conflict in the Gulf region tends to spook oil markets. A direct U.S.-Iran clash could send oil prices soaring and hurt the global economy. Major energy facilities in Saudi Arabia or the UAE could be targets, as could Iran’s own oil terminals (Iran might choose a “scorched earth” response to hurt global supply if it feels cornered). In short, the economic stakes are high, and countries worldwide would feel the impact of a Middle East war triggered by strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.
  • International Political Response: A unilateral U.S. strike (or one coordinated with Israel) would be extremely controversial. Russia and China, who have supported Iran diplomatically, would likely condemn the attack vehemently. They might see it as another Western military intervention and could respond by increasing support to Iran (perhaps providing advanced weapons or economic relief). European allies of the U.S. would be deeply concerned as well – while many Europeans don’t want Iran to get nuclear weapons, they also fear a war. NATO allies might offer quiet support for dealing a blow to Iran’s nuclear program, but publicly they would probably call for restraint and a return to diplomacy. The UN Security Council could become a stage for recriminations, though action there would be hamstrung by vetoes. Overall, a U.S. strike risks isolating Washington diplomatically if seen as overly aggressive, especially if Iran hasn’t taken an overt action that ‘justifies’ it at that moment.
  • Nuclear Proliferation Implications: Ironically, bombing Fordow could convince Iran’s leaders that they must obtain nuclear weapons as a deterrent against regime-threatening attacks. If Fordow is destroyed, Iran might salvage what it can and double down on a secret bomb program elsewhere, this time with even less transparency. In the past, some analysts have warned that military action could prompt Iran to make the political decision to pursue a nuclear warhead outright, whereas currently they may be hedging. Thus, the long-term consequence of a strike could be accelerating the very nuclear weapons pursuit it aims to prevent – unless the strike is part of a broader strategy to eliminate all of Iran’s nuclear sites and stockpiles. That broader campaign, however, would be even more akin to full-scale war.

On the other hand, some argue that not acting also has geopolitical implications – allowing Iran’s nuclear program to progress could spur a regional arms race or embolden Iran. There is a trade-off between the immediate risks of conflict escalation and the long-term risks of a nuclear-armed Iran. This is why the decision is so fraught. In the current scenario (mid-2020s), U.S. officials are openly divided: some believe bombing Fordow might be necessary to support Israel and permanently cripple Iran’s nuclear capability, while others warn it could drag the U.S. into a prolonged conflict(reuters.com). Even within the U.S. administration, debates rage between those prioritizing preventing a nuclear Iran at any cost and those urging caution to avoid a new Middle East war

In sum, the geopolitical cost of bombing Fordow would be extremely high. It could ignite a wider war with unpredictable outcomes, threaten global economic stability (through oil supply shocks), and alter the strategic landscape of the Middle East for years. Any decision to carry out such a strike would have to weigh these consequences very carefully, ideally as part of a broader strategy to contain escalation. History shows that strikes on nuclear facilities (Israel’s strikes on Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007) did not lead to all-out war – but those targets were in weaker states without the means to hit back globally. Iran is a different case, with far greater capabilities to retaliate. Thus, while militarily “can B-2 destroy Fordow” might be answered with a cautious yes, the subsequent question must be “at what cost?”.

Could Israel Destroy Fordow Without U.S. Help?

Israel has long considered Iran’s nuclear program an existential threat and has not ruled out taking unilateral military action. However, when it comes to Fordow, Israel faces major limitations in technology and weaponry. In a comparison of capabilities, Israel on its own is far less equipped than the U.S. to attack Fordow’s underground bunker:

  • Lack of Heavy Bunker Busters: Israel does not possess the GBU-57 MOP. The largest “bunker buster” in Israel’s known arsenal is the GBU-28, a 5,000-pound bomb originally supplied by the U.S. This weapon can penetrate on the order of 6 meters of concrete or dozens of feet of earth – formidable, but nowhere near the MOP’s penetration depth. Fordow’s critical sections lie 80+ m underground, so GBU-28s would be ineffective in reaching them. Israel also has smaller penetrator bombs like the BLU-109 (2,000-lb class). These were used in some recent operations – for instance, Israel reportedly used successive BLU-109s in 2024 to kill Hezbollah’s leader in a bunker in Beirut – but neither GBU-28 nor BLU-109 can reach the extreme depths of Fordow. Simply put, Israel “lacks the huge bunker busters needed to destroy this facility”.
  • No Strategic Bombers: Even if Israel had a 30,000-lb bomb, it has no aircraft that could carry such a weapon. Israel’s air force is built around fighter jets (F-15I, F-16I, and more recently F-35 stealth fighters) which can carry at most the 5,000-lb class munitions, and even those reduce their range. Israel has a fleet of aerial tankers for refueling, allowing fighters to reach Iran, but it does not have heavy bombers. By contrast, “The U.S. has both [the large bunker-busting bombs and the strategic bombers to deliver them] within flying distance of Iran,” as one analysis noted. So Israel would have to rely on multiple strikes with smaller weapons or find an unconventional way to deliver a larger ordnance (which would be very difficult to engineer).
  • Possible Workarounds: Some experts suggest Israel could attempt to replicate the effect of a massive bunker buster by repeatedly bombing the same exact spot with multiple sorties The idea would be to dig a deeper crater progressively. However, this approach is highly risky and uncertain. It would require Israeli jets to have uncontested airspace for multiple attack waves on the same target, which is unlikely against Iran’s air defenses. Iran would surely respond after the first strike attempt, making subsequent passes exceedingly dangerous. Another extreme option would be sending special forces to infiltrate and sabotage the facility from the ground. Israel has elite units with past successes in daring operations; indeed, Israeli commandos allegedly raided an underground Syrian missile site in 2022, planting explosives to destroy it(axios.com). A similar commando raid on Fordow, however, would be vastly more challenging – Fordow is in the heart of Iran, deep inside a military zone, and the underground halls are presumably sealed behind thick blast doors. While not impossible in a Hollywood sense, a special forces strike on Fordow would be a suicide mission and logistically daunting.
  • Covert and Cyber Operations: Outside of direct bombing, Israel has other tools it has used against Iran’s nuclear program: covert sabotage and cyberattacks. The infamous Stuxnet cyberattack in 2010 (widely attributed to a U.S.-Israeli effort) successfully disrupted Iran’s centrifuges via malware(euronews.com). Israel’s Mossad has also been linked to explosions and power outages at Natanz and the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists in the past. Similar methods could be aimed at Fordow – for example, sabotaging the power supply to underground facilities or smuggling in explosives. These techniques can cause serious damage or delays, but they might not destroy Fordow outright. They are also hard to execute in a tightly guarded, continuously monitored site like Fordow. Still, analysts note that if Israel cannot blast Fordow out of existence, “unconventional methods” like cyber warfare might be its next best option to disable the site(csis.org).
  • Israeli Intent and Preparations: Israeli leaders have made clear that Fordow is a critical target. As Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter said, “The entire operation… really has to be completed with the elimination of Fordow.”(axios.com) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has framed the current campaign as one that must end with Fordow’s destruction(aljazeera.com). The Israeli Air Force has been reportedly training for long-range strikes – including large exercises over the Mediterranean simulating attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites. Israel has also acquired new aerial refueling tankers and armaments from the U.S. in recent years, likely with Iran in mind. Despite all this, Israeli officials privately acknowledge that they would prefer U.S. assistance for Fordow(axios.com), because Israel alone might not be able to finish the job. In the ongoing conflict scenario (2025), Israel has struck Iran’s nuclear infrastructure above ground – destroying buildings at Natanz and Isfahan – but Fordow’s underground halls remain intact(axios.com), highlighting the gap in Israel’s capabilities. Thus, Israel might be able to hit Fordow, but probably cannot destroy it outright without U.S. bunker-buster bombs.

In summary, Israel could initiate an attack on Fordow (using dozens of aircraft, electronic warfare, and repeated bombing), but it would likely fall short of collapsing the deeply buried facility. This limitation is exactly why Israeli officials have lobbied the U.S. to join the fight: “Israel will require unforeseen tactical ingenuity or U.S. assistance to destroy Fordow”. The U.S. brings unique assets to the table – the B-2 and MOP – that Israel simply doesn’t have. Hence, while Israel has the resolve, its ability to accomplish the mission alone is doubtful. This also means the question of striking Fordow is not just military but deeply political: it hinges on U.S. willingness to either provide Israel the tools (which, in the case of a B-2 and MOP, essentially means the U.S. doing it directly) or to take on the mission itself.

Past Drills, Planning, and Statements on Striking Fordow

The possibility of striking Fordow has been contemplated for well over a decade, and both the U.S. and Israel have taken steps – rhetorically and materially – to prepare for that contingency. Some notable instances include:

  • U.S. Development of the MOP: As noted earlier, the U.S. began developing the Massive Ordnance Penetrator in the mid-2000s explicitly because of intelligence on hardened sites in Iran and North Korea. By 2009, Northrop Grumman had modified the B-2 bomber to carry the MOP(en.wikipedia.org), and by 2011 the bomb was in service. The rush to field this capability was a clear indicator that the Pentagon was gaming out worst-case scenarios for Fordow and Natanz if diplomacy failed. In fact, declassified reports from 2012 openly discussed underground targeting challenges and the need for better “earth-penetrating” weapons for Iran’s facilities(en.wikipedia.org). So the U.S. military has long had a plan on the shelf for Fordow – albeit one they hoped never to use if a diplomatic solution (like the JCPOA) could resolve the issue.
  • Israeli Exercises and Buildup: In the past few years, Israel has conducted large-scale military drills simulating war with Iran. For example, in 2022, the Israeli Air Force carried out a major exercise over the Mediterranean (as part of “Chariots of Fire” drills) that many believe was a rehearsal for striking Iran’s nuclear sites. The exercise involved dozens of jets flying long distances and coordinating complex strikes – exactly the kind of operation that an Iran strike would entail. Israel has also been upgrading its capabilities: ordering new KC-46A tankers from the U.S. for refueling, stocking up on precision-guided munitions, and improving its bunker-buster inventory (Israel reportedly sought more advanced U.S. bunker busters like the 5,000-lb GBU-72 and has tested domestically developed penetration warheads). These preparations underscore that **Israel has been actively planning for a scenario where it might have to attack Fordow if Iran’s nuclear advances become critical. Publicly, Israeli officials constantly repeat that “all options are on the table” regarding Iran’s nuclear program – a coded reference to potential military action.
  • Joint U.S.-Israel Coordination: The U.S. and Israel have closely coordinated on Iran contingency plans. High-level dialogues have taken place to ensure both are ready if push comes to shove. For instance, in June 2025, Israeli officials urgently told Washington that they might need to act on Fordow within weeks, pressing that the U.S. should not wait too long to decide on involvement(reuters.comreuters.com). There have been reports of joint exercises and simulations as well – such as integrating Israeli jets with U.S. assets in the region. In the current conflict timeline, the U.S. has so far let Israel take the lead, but has moved enabling assets like refueling tankers and surveillance planes to the theater(euronews.comeuronews.com). Notably, when B-2 bombers deploy to places like Guam or Diego Garcia during Iran crises, it is widely interpreted as a signal of U.S. readiness to carry out strikes on targets like Fordow if necessary. American leaders have made both public and private statements to that effect over the years. For example, former U.S. officials have mentioned in interviews that “we are gearing up for a strike” on an Iranian nuclear site if diplomacy fails. Such statements are often deliberately ambiguous, intended to boost deterrence by keeping Iran uncertain.
  • Public Statements and Warnings: Iranian officials, for their part, have warned that Fordow is a red line. They often tout Fordow’s invulnerability; in 2013, Iran’s Supreme Leader even said, “the enemies know they cannot damage Fordow.” This bravado is meant to discourage attack, but also reflects Iran’s confidence in the bunker’s resilience. Meanwhile, U.S. and Israeli officials have occasionally been very blunt. In late 2019, an Israeli foreign ministry memo leaked that hinted Israel might request U.S. “bunker busters” for Fordow if Iran’s enrichment crossed certain thresholds. More recently, in the thick of the 2025 conflict, Israel’s ambassador stated clearly that the campaign isn’t over until Fordow is gone(aljazeera.com), and Prime Minister Netanyahu has alluded to the U.S. possibly stepping in. These public pronouncements serve to prepare domestic and international audiences for the possibility of such a drastic action. By signaling intentions and resolve, Israel likely hopes to deter Iran (or compel the U.S. to act, in some cases), while the U.S. signaling is aimed at both deterring Iran and assuring Israel.

In summary, striking Fordow has been in military planning pipelines for years, and numerous drills and diplomatic discussions have revolved around this contingency. It has essentially been the nightmare scenario shadowing all Iran nuclear negotiations – the question of, “If all else fails, do we physically destroy the facility?” The existence of specialized U.S. weaponry (the B-2 and MOP) and Israeli preparations show that the option, however undesirable, is kept ready. As of mid-2025, with hostilities between Israel and Iran having already broken out, this question has moved from hypothetical to immediate. Both nations have run through the scenarios many times on paper. Whether those plans translate into action depends on political decisions in Washington and Jerusalem, as well as Tehran’s own choices.

Conclusion: Feasibility vs. Consequences

Can the B-2 destroy Fordow? From a purely military-technical standpoint, the U.S. B-2 Spirit bomber armed with GBU-57 bunker busters stands the best chance of any platform in the world to take out Fordow. The stealth bomber can likely reach the target unhindered, and the Massive Ordnance Penetrator is engineered to blast apart deeply buried bunkers. With multiple bombs and careful planning, there is a reasonable probability that a B-2 strike could at least render Fordow inoperable, if not outright demolish it. The U.S. is the only country with this capability(reuters.com), and thus the only one that could answer the question with a “yes” in action.

However, feasibility does not equal simplicity or certainty. There are technical uncertainties (will the bombs penetrate enough, do we know the exact layout to aim for?), and no operation of this magnitude is risk-free. More importantly, there are profound consequences to weigh. Destroying Fordow by force could have far-reaching fallout: a wider war with Iran, attacks on U.S. and allied interests, global economic disruption, and the collapse of any remaining diplomatic pathways. These outcomes must be balanced against the potential benefit of eliminating a key part of Iran’s nuclear program.

For Israel, the calculus is even starker: Israel likely cannot destroy Fordow alone, and would need the U.S. for a truly decisive strike. This interdependence adds a layer of geopolitical complexity – Israel might act unilaterally up to a point, but to finish the job it needs its ally’s heavy firepower, which in turn drags the U.S. directly into the conflict.

A balanced assessment would conclude that while a B-2 strike is militarily feasible, it should be a last resort after exhausting all other options (diplomacy, sanctions, covert action). The risks of escalation are enormous. Even U.S. defense experts critical of Iran acknowledge that bombing Fordow could prompt Iran to retaliate in ways that spiral into a regional conflict(atlanticcouncil.org). On the other hand, proponents argue that allowing Fordow to continue enriching to near-weapons-grade poses an existential threat that might justify the risks. This is the classic dilemma of the Iran nuclear standoff.

In the end, the question of “Can the B-2 destroy Fordow?” cannot be separated from “Should it?”. Technologically, the B-2 bomber and MOP bomb provide a capable, if not guaranteed, tool to attack Iran’s underground nuclear site. But any decision to use that tool must carefully consider the aftermath. A successful strike could set back Iran’s nuclear timeline significantly and demonstrate resolve, yet it would also likely trigger retaliation and instability that could be calamitous.

Thus, the feasibility and consequences must be weighed together. It is possible that one night a formation of B-2 Spirits could slip through the darkness, unleash earth-shattering blows on Fordow, and bury Iran’s nuclear ambitions under tons of rubble. It is also possible that such an act could open a deadly new chapter of conflict in the Middle East. The world’s leaders will have to decide if crossing that Rubicon is necessary – or if there is still a chance to contain Iran’s nuclear program through other means, avoiding the dire chain reaction that a B-2 strike on Fordow might set in motion.

Sources:

Trending now

Can the B-2 Stealth Bomber Destroy Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Facility?
Can the B-2 Stealth Bomber Destroy Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Facility?