What could happen if Trump does decide to bomb Iran's main nuclear site
If President Donald Trump does decide to use the United States' largest conventional bomb to destroy Iran's fortresslike Fordo nuclear enrichment facility, the colossal force of the explosion would likely cause casualties among workers or anyone else still at the site.
But it would not trigger a nuclear explosion or a widespread radiological or chemical spill, according to former nuclear officials and experts.
Sitting to the south of Iran's capital, Tehran, the Fordo plant is used to enrich uranium for the production of nuclear energy or, potentially, a bomb. But although this uranium and its chemical byproducts can be harmful to ingest or touch without protective equipment — they won't create a wider blast or regional contamination, analysts say.
That would only be the case if Fordo housed nuclear reactors or warheads, which international watchdogs and experts say is not the case.
'If you're down there and it gets bombed, you're stuffed,' Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, the ex-commanding officer of the British military's Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment, told NBC News on Thursday.
'But that's because this is a 2,500-kilogram (about 5,500-pound) warhead we are talking about here,' he said, referring to the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (or MOP), the largest non-nuclear bomb in the world, which only the U.S. has.
Less of a bunker-buster and more of a mountain-buster, this is perhaps the only conventional ordnance in the world that could do the job if Trump did decide to bomb Fordo.
'But if anyone thinks this would be like Chernobyl — absolutely not,' de Bretton-Gordon said. 'Blowing up uranium will not create a nuclear explosion; that is a very complex piece of science, which is why it's so bloody difficult to make nuclear bombs.'
There is also little chance of a wider radiation leak or spill impacting the surrounding area, according to Mark Nelson, founder and managing director of Radiant Energy Group, a research consultancy based in Chicago.
That's because 'the nuclear substances at Fordo are only very weakly radioactive,' he said. Were this a nuclear plant or missile site, there could be 'fission products' — the stuff uranium breaks down into during a nuclear reaction — which can cause a wider catastrophe.
Scrutiny has nonetheless sharpened on Fordo as Trump deliberates whether to join Israel's attacks on Iran.
Iran's most advanced enrichment facility, Fordo was refining uranium to 60%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. That's far more than the 3-5% needed for power plants — and far closer to the 90% required to build a warhead.
Until 2018, Iran had been complying with a landmark deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, that offered Tehran billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for agreeing to curb its nuclear program.
The agreement was sealed by President Barack Obama in July 2015, along with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the U.S., Russia, France, China and the United Kingdom — as well as Germany and the European Union. Most independent observers said it was successfully limiting Iran's nuclear program.
That effectively collapsed when Trump walked away from the pact three years later.
Iran had been back in talks with Trump when Israel started bombing last week. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he had no choice because Iran was racing toward building a bomb, something the International Atomic Energy Agency says it has not been able to confirm.
The watchdog has been nonetheless concerned about Fordo, where uranium's naturally mined form is turned into a gas and spun at high speed inside centrifuges. That separates its heavier isotope, uranium-238, from the lighter uranium-235 that can be used for civilian purposes or otherwise.
Iran says Fordo was designed to hold 3,000 of these centrifuges, a 'size and configuration' that is 'inconsistent with a peaceful program,' Obama said in 2009.
Observers such as de Bretton-Gordon say the U.S.'s enormous MOP bomb might be powerful enough not only to destroy this facility but effectively incase it under the collapsed mountain. That could produce a similar effect to the sarcophagus built around Chernobyl after the disaster in 1986, Bretton-Gordon said.
Whereas Chernobyl's protective enclosure is 40 feet thick, 'at Fordo we would be talking about a sarcophagus 200-feet thick,' de Bretton-Gordon said.
That's not to say the risk of contamination would be zero.
If the uranium gas is released, it would partly decompose into hydrofluoric acid, a deadly substance that causes deep-tissue burns if touched without protective gear, and potentially fatal problems for the heart, lungs and nervous system if inhaled.
'It's a nasty chemical to be around without correct safety equipment and procedures,' said Nelson at the Radiant Energy Group. Any blast survivors, or rescuers without the necessary safety equipment, would face 'extremely severe' consequences, he said, but caveated that 'you have to be really close and really unprotected.'
There is also a chance that radioactive material could seep into any water source that's running through the mountain. But the likely radioactive levels would be low — detectable rather than harmful — both Nelson and de Bretton-Gordon said.
Ultimately, Nelson agreed, all of these risks pale in comparison with the threat posed by the MOP bomb itself, whose payload is upward of 5,500 pounds and weighs a total of 30,000 pounds.
'The danger at the seaside of saltwater ingestion is real — even a few liters could kill you,' he analogized. 'This danger, however, is relatively small compared to drowning.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
26 minutes ago
- NBC News
Pakistan to nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize
Pakistan said on Saturday it would recommend U.S. President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, an accolade that he has said he craves, for his work in helping to resolve the recent conflict between India and Pakistan. Some analysts in Pakistan said the move might persuade Trump to think again about potentially joining Israel in striking Iran's nuclear facilities. Pakistan has condemned Israel's action as a violation of international law and a threat to regional stability. In May, a surprise announcement by Trump of a ceasefire brought an abrupt end to a four-day conflict between nuclear-armed foes India and Pakistan. Trump has since repeatedly said that he averted a nuclear war, saved millions of lives, and grumbled that he got no credit for it. Pakistan agrees that U.S. diplomatic intervention ended the fighting, but India says it was a bilateral agreement between the two militaries. 'President Trump demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship through robust diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi, which de-escalated a rapidly deteriorating situation,' Pakistan said. 'This intervention stands as a testament to his role as a genuine peacemaker.' Governments can nominate people for the Nobel Peace Prize. There was no immediate response from Washington. A spokesperson for the Indian government did not respond to a request for comment. Trump has repeatedly said that he's willing to mediate between India and Pakistan over the disputed Kashmir region, their main source of enmity. Islamabad, which has long called for international attention to Kashmir, is delighted. But his stance has upended U.S. policy in South Asia, which had favored India as a counterweight to China, and put in question previously close relations between Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In a social media post, opens new tab on Friday, Trump gave a long list of conflicts he said he had resolved, including India and Pakistan and the Abraham accords in his first term between Israel and some Muslim-majority countries. He added: 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do.' Pakistan's move to nominate Trump came in the same week its army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, met the U.S. leader for lunch. It was the first time that a Pakistani military leader had been invited to the White House when a civilian government was in place in Islamabad. Trump's planned meeting with Modi at the G7 summit in Canada last week did not take place after the U.S. president left early, but the two later spoke by phone, in which Modi said 'India does not and will never accept mediation' in its dispute with Pakistan, according to the Indian government. Mushahid Hussain, a former chair of the Senate Defence Committee in Pakistan's parliament, suggested nominating Trump for the peace prize was justified.' Trump is good for Pakistan,' he said. 'If this panders to Trump's ego, so be it. All the European leaders have been sucking up to him big time.' But the move was not universally applauded in Pakistan, where Trump's support for Israel's war in Gaza has inflamed passions. 'Israel's sugar daddy in Gaza and cheerleader of its attacks on Iran isn't a candidate for any prize,' said Talat Hussain, a prominent Pakistani television political talk show host, in a post on X. 'And what if he starts to kiss Modi on both cheeks again after a few months?'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
EU fantasies of toppling the dollar are totally delusional
It's a nice problem to have amid the Trump-inspired madness that grips today's foreign exchange markets. But it's a problem none the less. The Swiss franc keeps on appreciating, and there seems to be almost nothing the authorities can do to stop it. Increasingly alarmed by its trajectory, the Swiss National Bank last week cut its official policy rate back down to zero, and there is now talk of rates going negative again by summer's end. But to little effect. Switzerland's safe haven attributes have rarely been in such high demand. Rising geopolitical tensions have combined with growing loss of trust in the dollar as the bedrock of the global economy to send the franc soaring, almost regardless of whatever rate of interest it carries. Lest it be gold, there are few repositories of wealth thought more secure than Switzerland. Contrast that with the UK, where Bank Rate is still firmly stuck at 4.25pc with stubbornly persistent inflation to match. Thanks substantially to the lower import prices that the surging franc brings about, prices as a whole are going down not up; there is little or no cost of living crisis. This is great for consumers, not so much for Swiss industry, which has to match these deflating prices at home and abroad. But thus far at least, it's coped remarkably well. I've never bought the idea that a competitive economy needs a weak currency. Persistent devaluation has been the British way for decades now, and little good has it done either. At best, it's only smoothed the decline – a tranquiliser to avoid having to face up to the hard yards of painful structural adjustment. While the UK has grown poorer, the Swiss grow ever richer – living proof that a strong currency goes hand in hand with a competitive economy. The one is a reflection of the other. Bad, uncompetitive companies are quickly weeded out and dispensed with, while the disciplines of having to compete with cheaper foreign goods and services forces the survivors into imaginative innovation and productivity gain. You can, however, have too much of a good thing, and this is the unfortunate position that Switzerland now finds itself in. Broadly speaking, Switzerland produces in appreciating francs, but sells in equally fast depreciating dollars. There is only so far countervailing productivity improvement can take you. Theoretically, Donald Trump's tariff policies should make the dollar stronger, in that all other things being equal, they ought to reduce the size of the deficit. But it hasn't worked out that way. In practice, they've only further undermined international confidence in US economic management more widely. To most observers, it looks as if the White House is deliberately trying to tank the dollar. And on one level, it is; a depreciating dollar temporarily helps domestic producers by making imports more expensive. When combined with tariffs – effectively a sales tax on foreign producers – US industry gets a double boost. Trump wants the best of both worlds; he wants a weak dollar, but he also very much likes the dollar's commanding position in the global economy for the geopolitical power it bestows. Sadly for him, it's not clear he can have both. To support a weak dollar, he needs to make dollar assets less attractive to foreign investors. As Stephen Miran, the head of Trump's council of economic advisers, has suggested, this might be achieved by imposing a withholding tax on income generated by US assets, or by converting foreign holdings of US Treasuries into 100-year bonds. Trump's problem is that the less attractive the US makes itself to foreign investors, the less likely it is that the dollar can sustain its dominant reserve currency position. Use of the dollar for sanctions against countries the US has got a problem with has further undermined trust in the currency as both a store of value and reliable means of exchange. International trust relies crucially on the idea of a global order based on agreed rules, the very thing Trump wants to dispense with. So the dollar turns weaker, and together with the Trump tariff shock, it drives up domestic US inflation. Despite almost daily berating from Trump, Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, is sitting on his hands and refusing to reduce interest rates in the precipitous way the president demands. The more Trump complains, the more Powell digs in. Determination not to give way has become a matter of principle, almost regardless of its economic merits. Powell's stance is totemic in the wider struggle to protect institutional integrity from presidential diktat. Once Federal Reserve independence goes, the whole fragile structure of dollar hegemony begins to crumble. Even Trump must know that. Meanwhile, Europe is cutting fast – with the notable exception of the UK, where inflation remains a problem. Normally, America's higher interest rates relative to Europe would cause the dollar to strengthen, but the trust issue has provoked a very different response – a weaker dollar despite a widening interest rate gap. Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank, sees Trump's antics as an opportunity for a 'global euro moment'. It has long been the ambition of European policymakers to look the mighty dollar in the face, and eventually usurp its position in the international monetary system. This has always seemed fanciful. For all its grandstanding, the EU remains a disjointed confederation of fiscally sovereign and often deeply divided nations, with no centralised Treasury function to speak of, no banking union and no unified sovereign debt market. This makes its monetary union acutely vulnerable to existential crisis. Lagarde might think of herself as queen bee, but her powers and reach are remarkably limited. As long as this remains the case – and there is little sign of it changing – Lagarde's musings are just delusional nonsense. Where reserve managers have been diversifying away from the dollar, it has, moreover, tended to be into gold, not the euro. Indeed, gold recently overtook the euro as the biggest central bank reserve asset after the dollar. A rather more potent long term threat comes from China, whose central bank digital currency and the infrastructure being built around it are deliberately designed to provide an alternative to the dollar for trade and investment. Those who take umbrage at Trump's America can try China instead. Who's to say it's less reliable than a country that slaps record tariffs on some of its closest allies? Regrettably, Switzerland is just too small to act as a global reserve currency. As it is, it struggles to manage the inflows of international capital looking for safety amid the bedlam of today's world. Already, the Swiss National Bank balance sheet is swollen by its various currency interventions to a size considerably bigger than that of Switzerland's entire economy. It can surely go no further in printing Swiss francs to buy foreign assets. But as I say, it's a nice problem to have.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
The future of Iran
Follow on Apple or Spotify. Listen on the Reuters app. For decades, Iran was able to project power across the Middle East using its network of proxies. That meant any strikes against it could threaten to trigger a formidable response. But Israel's recent attacks have exposed just how vulnerable Tehran is. In this special episode of Reuters World News, we look at how Iran went from monarchy to Islamic Republic - and what its future could look like. Sign up for the Reuters Econ World newsletter here. Listen to the Reuters Econ World podcast here. Visit the Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit to opt out of targeted advertising. Further Reading Iran's divided opposition senses its moment but activists remain wary of protests, opens new tab Iran strikes Israeli hospital; Trump to decide on US role in conflict within 'two weeks', opens new tab Israeli scientists scramble to save work after Iranian missile hits labs, opens new tab
