{"id":163491,"date":"2026-11-04T23:47:00","date_gmt":"2026-11-04T18:17:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aviationa2z.com\/?p=163491"},"modified":"2026-11-04T22:06:25","modified_gmt":"2026-11-04T16:36:25","slug":"trump-nuclear-strike-on-irans-pickaxe-mountain-white-house-responds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aviationa2z.com\/index.php\/2026\/11\/04\/trump-nuclear-strike-on-irans-pickaxe-mountain-white-house-responds\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump Nuclear Strike on Iran\u2019s Pickaxe Mountain: White House Responds to Tucker Carlson\u2019s Claim"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON, D.C.-<\/strong> The White House has rejected commentator Tucker Carlson\u2019s claim that U.S. President Donald Trump could authorize a nuclear strike against Iran\u2019s heavily fortified Pickaxe Mountain facility. Carlson alleged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu<\/a> was pressuring Trump to use nuclear weapons against the suspected underground nuclear site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The allegation surfaced shortly before the November 3, 2026, U.S. midterm elections. However, the Trump administration dismissed Carlson\u2019s claims, while nuclear weapons experts warned that such an attack could cause widespread radioactive contamination and fundamentally change global security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Trump
Photo- WIkipedia<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

White House Responds to Tucker Carlson\u2019s Nuclear Strike Allegation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Carlson made the allegations in a lengthy post on X on Sunday evening, claiming that the Trump administration could be days away from launching a nuclear attack against Iran. He identified Pickaxe Mountain, also known as Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, in central Iran as the potential target.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Carlson, Netanyahu was pushing Washington<\/a> to authorize the attack because conventional American weapons could not penetrate the estimated 300 feet of granite protecting the underground tunnels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carlson also claimed that Netanyahu was personally contacting Trump to push for military action. He attributed this information to an unnamed observer but did not provide documents, official statements, or independently verifiable evidence supporting the allegation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Monday afternoon, November 2, a White House official rejected Carlson\u2019s assessment in a statement to The War Zone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The official stated that Trump had a “wide range of options available regarding Iran” and would make decisions based on protecting American citizens. The official also criticized Carlson, arguing that he had no access to military planning or the president’s thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The statement did not confirm that the administration was considering nuclear weapons. Instead, it reiterated that the president retained several options regarding Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier on Monday, Trump also played down the possibility of launching another attack after the November 3 midterm elections. When reporters asked whether he was considering military action after the election, he answered no, TWZ<\/a> reported.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Trump
Photo: Lockheed Martin<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Trump Has Previously Rejected Using Nuclear Weapons Against Iran<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Carlson’s allegations conflict with Trump’s previous public statements about nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In April 2026, Trump<\/a> rejected the possibility of using a nuclear weapon against Iran, arguing that American conventional military capabilities had already inflicted significant damage without requiring nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He also stated that nuclear weapons should never be used by any country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump repeated his position on August 31 when a reporter questioned him about the possibility of a nuclear strike against Iran. He argued that using nuclear weapons against an already weakened military opponent would serve no purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More recently, on October 16, Trump told Newsmax that Washington might need to target Pickaxe Mountain to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. However, he explicitly ruled out using a nuclear bomb, saying that conventional military options were sufficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump also reiterated that he was not considering deploying American ground troops into Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless, his April social media warning that an entire civilization could be destroyed raised concerns about the potential consequences of escalating military operations against Tehran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His previous statements do not establish that he is considering nuclear weapons, but they provide important context for the renewed debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Iran
Photo: Iranian State Media<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What Is Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain Nuclear Facility?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Pickaxe Mountain is a heavily fortified underground installation in central Iran. It is also identified by its Persian name, Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facility has attracted international attention because of its depth, hardened construction, and potential connection to Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iran has previously discussed plans to produce centrifuges at the newer installation to support its uranium enrichment programme. Assessments also suggest that the underground complex could accommodate a full enrichment facility and other nuclear infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the exact contents of the site remain unconfirmed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Its underground construction presents a significant challenge for military planners because conventional bunker-busting weapons may struggle to destroy infrastructure located deep beneath solid rock.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carlson claimed that the facility’s tunnels were protected by approximately 300 feet of granite. He argued that existing American conventional weapons could not reach the suspected enrichment infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the precise depth, internal layout, and operational status of the installation have not been independently established. Therefore, claims that Iran has restarted enrichment activities specifically at Pickaxe Mountain should not be treated as confirmed information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

B61-11: The Nuclear Weapon Designed for Underground Targets<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The B61-11 is the specialized American<\/a> air-delivered nuclear weapon discussed in connection with a potential attack on Pickaxe Mountain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The weapon is based on the earlier B61-7 design but incorporates a reinforced structure intended to improve its ability to penetrate the ground before detonation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Open-source assessments place its explosive yield between approximately 340 and 400 kilotons. Reports have also suggested that fewer than 100 examples remain in the American stockpile, although the exact inventory has not been publicly confirmed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unlike conventional bunker-busting bombs, the B61-11 uses a nuclear explosion to transmit destructive energy through the surrounding ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, its penetration capability has significant limitations. Nuclear earth-penetrating weapons do not physically drill through hundreds of feet of solid granite. They penetrate only a limited distance before detonating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A 2005 National Research Council study found that a penetration depth of approximately three metres captures most of the ground-shock advantage associated with nuclear earth-penetrating weapons. It also concluded that existing designs cannot penetrate deeply enough to contain the effects of a nuclear explosion completely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consequently, even a weapon designed for underground targets would create substantial radioactive fallout and environmental consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said a B61-11 could potentially render the facility unusable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, he warned that the resulting radioactive contamination and damage to surrounding infrastructure would be considerable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Photo: Israel Missile Defense Organization<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Conventional Weapons Offer Other Options Against Pickaxe Mountain<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Despite the challenges associated with Pickaxe Mountain, American military planners have several alternatives to a nuclear strike.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most significant conventional option is the GBU-57\/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 30,000-pound-class bunker-busting bomb developed to attack hardened underground installations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The United States used the GBU-57 during Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025, dropping 12 bombs on Iran’s Fordow facility and another two on Natanz.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At Fordow, six MOPs targeted two ventilation shafts, with successive bombs penetrating deeper into the underground complex.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, using the same approach against Pickaxe Mountain could prove considerably more difficult. Analysts do not know whether the installation has comparable ventilation shafts or other accessible features that American forces could target.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The remaining American MOP inventory is also not publicly established, making it difficult to assess whether sufficient weapons would be available for another operation of similar scale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another possible weapon is the GBU-43\/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), commonly known as the Mother of All Bombs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 22,000-pound-class weapon produces powerful overpressure effects but is not designed to penetrate deeply buried underground facilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CBS News previously reported that the White House and Pentagon had prepared plans involving MOAB strikes against Iranian military installations, including Pickaxe Mountain, if Trump authorized them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the precise purpose of the weapon in such an operation remains unclear. Its effects could damage exposed infrastructure, tunnel entrances and external support facilities, but it would not function as a conventional deep-penetrating bunker buster.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The weapon was used in combat once, during an American operation in Afghanistan in April 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Special Operations Could Be Another Military Option<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Another possibility would involve American special operations forces attempting to enter the facility and disable its infrastructure from inside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, such a mission would present substantial operational challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pickaxe Mountain is located deep inside Iran, meaning American forces would need to reach and secure the area before attempting to access the underground complex.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The operation could require a relatively large force and potentially several days of activity, depending on the installation’s internal layout, accessibility and security arrangements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Former U.S. Central Command commander Joseph Votel has previously discussed the challenges of deploying ground forces deep inside Iranian territory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A similar operation could also expose American personnel to considerable risks and would not guarantee the destruction of the facility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2024, Israeli special operations forces conducted a raid against an underground missile installation in Syria, using explosives to destroy machinery and infrastructure inside the facility. However, repeating such an operation in Iran would present a different scale of difficulty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Nuclear
Photo: By Original uploader was Chairboy at en.wikipedia – Transferred from en.wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/w\/index.php?curid=11742725<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Nuclear Fallout Could Spread Across Several Countries<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

One of the biggest concerns surrounding a potential nuclear strike against Pickaxe Mountain is the possibility of radioactive fallout spreading beyond Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A nuclear explosion against an underground installation would not necessarily keep radioactive material contained beneath the surface.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kristensen warned that a B61-11 explosion could release substantial quantities of radioactive rock, soil and debris into the atmosphere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He referenced modelling using the NUKEMAP nuclear effects simulator, which indicated that radioactive material from a hypothetical surface explosion could travel nearly 300 kilometres downwind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The actual contamination pattern would depend on the weapon’s detonation characteristics, local geology, atmospheric conditions and prevailing winds. The 300-kilometre estimate is therefore a modelled scenario, not a confirmed prediction of the consequences of an actual attack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The potential danger could extend beyond Iranian territory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Depending on wind direction, radioactive material could reach parts of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Turkey, Azerbaijan and other countries across the Caucasus and Central Asia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is also uncertainty about the impact on any highly enriched uranium or other nuclear material potentially stored inside the facility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kristensen explained that such material could remain trapped beneath the destroyed installation or become dispersed into the atmosphere, depending on the circumstances of the explosion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stephen I. Schwartz, a nonresident senior fellow at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, also warned against assumptions that underground nuclear explosions could prevent widespread environmental contamination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He explained that earth-penetrating nuclear weapons cannot reach the depths required to contain radioactive gases and debris completely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The National Research Council reached a similar conclusion in its 2005 assessment of nuclear earth-penetrating weapons. It found that these weapons could produce significant radioactive fallout even when detonated a few metres below the surface.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Photo : Barna Rov\u00e1cs | Wikimedia Commons |https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Paksi_atomer%C5%91m%C5%B1.JPG<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Nuclear Strike Could Change Global Security and Trigger Proliferation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Beyond the immediate destruction and radioactive contamination, a nuclear attack against Iran could have serious consequences for international security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The United States has not used nuclear weapons in warfare since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using another nuclear weapon after more than eight decades would break a longstanding international restraint that successive American administrations have sought to maintain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carlson argued that an American nuclear attack on Iran could encourage other nuclear-armed countries to consider using their weapons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He specifically raised the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons against Ukraine, increased tensions between India and Pakistan, and further nuclear threats from North Korea against South Korea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, his prediction that such an attack would inevitably trigger World War III remains an unsubstantiated assessment rather than an established outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nuclear weapons experts have nevertheless warned that breaking the non-use precedent could make future nuclear threats more credible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kristensen argued that a unilateral American nuclear attack without an imminent Iranian nuclear threat would severely damage Washington’s international position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It could also weaken relationships with allies that have consistently supported nuclear non-proliferation and efforts to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schwartz similarly warned that such an attack could encourage other countries to expand their nuclear capabilities, making future proliferation efforts considerably more difficult to control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He also highlighted the possibility of widespread diplomatic and economic consequences for the United States and its allies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Patriot surface-to-air missiles | Photo: NATO<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Nuclear Experts Consider an American Strike Unlikely<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Despite the seriousness of Carlson’s allegations, several experts contacted by The War Zone considered an American nuclear strike against Pickaxe Mountain highly unlikely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said such an attack was not likely, although he did not completely dismiss the possibility of a president authorizing an extreme military decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hans Kristensen also described the prospect as highly unlikely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He argued that there was no justification for ending the 81-year period without nuclear weapons use in warfare. He warned that such an action could damage international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stephen I. Schwartz offered a more cautious assessment, saying that predicting whether Trump would authorize such an attack was difficult.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, none of the experts established that the Trump administration was actively preparing a nuclear strike against Pickaxe Mountain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The White House also did not confirm Carlson’s allegation or disclose any nuclear attack plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The central distinction remains that Carlson’s claim has not been independently verified, while Trump’s previous public statements have explicitly rejected the need to use nuclear weapons against Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Pickaxe Mountain presents a challenging military target, conventional weapons and other military options remain part of the broader discussion. A nuclear attack, however, would carry consequences extending far beyond the destruction of a single underground facility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stay tuned with us. Further, follow us on social media for the latest updates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Join us on\u00a0Telegram Group\u00a0<\/a>for the Latest Aviation Updates. Subsequently, follow us on\u00a0Google News<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Russian Nuclear Bomber Tu-95 Plane Crashes Shortly After Takeoff<\/a><\/blockquote>