As Americans prepare to vote in the midterm elections, tensions between US President Donald Trump and political commentator Tucker Carlson have intensified after the former Fox News host claimed that the Trump administration could be only days away from launching a nuclear strike against an underground Iranian nuclear facility.
In a lengthy post on X, Carlson alleged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pressing Trump to authorize a nuclear attack on Pickaxe Mountain, a heavily fortified underground complex in central Iran that has attracted growing attention from US and Israeli intelligence agencies.
Carlson’s warning, which has not been independently substantiated, has raised questions about the possibility of an unprecedented escalation in the conflict with Iran, the limits of conventional American bunker-busting weapons and the potential consequences of using nuclear weapons against an underground target.
“Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran,” Carlson wrote.
He identified Pickaxe Mountain, also known locally as Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, as the potential target, alleging that Israeli intelligence believes Tehran has restarted nuclear enrichment activities inside the underground facility.
“No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place. The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one,” Carlson claimed.
Citing an unnamed informed observer, Carlson added that Netanyahu was contacting Trump about the proposal almost daily.
Neither the Israeli government nor the US administration has publicly confirmed Carlson’s allegation that a nuclear strike is under consideration.
The White House swiftly rejected Carlson’s allegations, questioning his credibility and denying that he had access to information about the president’s military calculations.
“Tucker Carlson lost his way long ago due to a debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and he has no insight into military planning or the Commander-in-Chief’s thinking,” a White House official said.
The administration added that Trump had several options available concerning Iran and would make decisions based on what was necessary to protect American national security.
The response did not explicitly confirm or deny whether the Pentagon had examined different weapons options for a potential attack on Pickaxe Mountain. However, Carlson’s account remains unsupported by publicly available evidence.
The controversy is particularly significant because Trump has repeatedly identified Pickaxe Mountain as a potential target in any renewed American military operation against Iran.
In a recent public statement, Trump said the United States had already destroyed much of Iran’s military capability but still needed to deal with one or two remaining targets.
“You probably could look at Pickaxe Mountain, and you have to take care of that. We can do that all very quickly,” Trump said.
His remarks have intensified speculation about whether Washington is considering another military operation against Iran, particularly because the underground complex was not destroyed during the previous American bombing campaign.
However, Trump’s threats to attack the facility do not establish that he is considering nuclear weapons. Indeed, he publicly rejected the prospect of using nuclear weapons against Iran in October, saying that there was no reason to employ them when conventional military options remained available.
Carlson’s intervention also reflects his increasingly public disagreement with Trump over American policy toward Israel and the war with Iran. Once a prominent supporter of Trump’s political movement, Carlson has become increasingly critical of the administration’s approach to the conflict.
He claimed that Netanyahu’s political difficulties following Israel’s recent elections were driving the Israeli leader to seek further American military intervention.
According to Carlson, Netanyahu had failed to secure the parliamentary majority needed to form a government and was therefore politically vulnerable. He argued that the Israeli prime minister needed Trump’s continued support and was consequently pushing Washington toward renewed confrontation with Tehran.
Carlson also claimed that Vice President JD Vance and Trump’s special envoy and friend Steve Witkoff were urging the president to pursue negotiations rather than launch another military operation.
According to Carlson, both officials believe a diplomatic agreement with Iran remains possible, despite the deep disagreements between Washington and Tehran.
The competing positions, if accurately described, would reflect a significant debate within the Trump administration over whether military pressure can achieve objectives that diplomacy has so far failed to secure.
Pickaxe Mountain, known in Iran as Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, is an extensive underground tunnel complex located near the country’s Natanz nuclear facility in Isfahan province.
The facility has attracted international attention because of its suspected connection to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and its unusually deep underground construction.
Western intelligence assessments have raised concerns that the complex could provide Iran with a protected location for sensitive nuclear-related activities. Satellite imagery has also indicated continuing construction activity around the site.
A September 2026 analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) examined satellite imagery showing construction activity at Pickaxe Mountain. The research highlighted the difficulty of determining the facility’s precise underground depth from surface imagery alone. Estimates have placed it approximately 80 to 100 metres below ground, although the actual configuration of its tunnels remains uncertain.
Iran, meanwhile, has rejected allegations that nuclear enrichment activities are taking place at the complex.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei previously described claims about nuclear activities at Kolang Mountain as a fabricated justification for aggression, destruction and sabotage.
The facility’s suspected depth presents a substantial challenge for conventional American weapons.
During Operation Midnight Hammer in 2025, American forces attacked major Iranian nuclear facilities, including Fordow and Natanz, using advanced bunker-busting bombs and other weapons.
However, Pickaxe Mountain’s underground infrastructure has remained a major concern for military planners because its tunnels may be considerably more difficult to penetrate.
The United States possesses several powerful conventional weapons, but their effectiveness against a facility buried beneath hundreds of feet of rock is uncertain.
The most prominent is the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a bunker-busting bomb weighing approximately 13,600 kilograms. It was specifically developed to attack deeply buried and heavily reinforced underground facilities.
Its publicly reported penetration capability is approximately 60 feet of concrete or up to 200 feet of earth, depending on the material and conditions.
That does not necessarily mean it could destroy a facility located approximately 100 metres underground, particularly if the tunnels are protected by solid granite and reinforced structures.
Another weapon frequently mentioned in discussions about possible attacks is the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, commonly known as the Mother of All Bombs.
However, despite its enormous explosive power, the MOAB is not a specialized deep-penetration weapon. It is designed primarily for large-area destruction rather than penetrating deeply buried underground facilities.
Consequently, its ability to destroy the central infrastructure of Pickaxe Mountain would be limited.
These challenges have fuelled speculation about whether Washington could consider a nuclear earth-penetrating weapon if conventional attacks failed to eliminate the suspected underground facility.
Among the weapons discussed in connection with America’s nuclear capabilities is the B61 family of gravity bombs.
The B61-11 is particularly relevant because it was developed as an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon intended to attack hardened underground military facilities.
Unlike conventional bunker-busters, which rely on physical penetration followed by an explosive detonation, nuclear earth-penetrating weapons seek to transmit an enormous amount of explosive energy through the ground.
The B61-11 has a strengthened casing designed to withstand impact with the ground before detonation. Its penetration capability is limited, generally measured in metres rather than tens of metres.
Its principal advantage is the ground-shock effect. By detonating below or close to the surface, a nuclear explosion can transfer more energy into surrounding geological material than an ordinary airburst, potentially damaging underground structures.
The weapon is believed to have a maximum explosive yield of approximately 340 to 400 kilotons, although publicly available information about its operational characteristics remains limited.
For comparison, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 had explosive yields of approximately 15 and 21 kilotons, respectively.
A B61-11 detonation could therefore release explosive energy many times greater than the weapons used against Japan during the Second World War.
The B61-12 is another variant of the American nuclear bomb family. It incorporates a precision-guidance tail kit, improving accuracy and allowing military planners to consider lower explosive yields against selected targets.
Its maximum yield is approximately 50 kilotons, although the weapon has multiple selectable yield settings.
The B61-13 is a more powerful variant designed to provide the US president with additional options against certain hardened and large-area military targets. It incorporates the precision-guidance technology associated with the B61-12 while offering a higher explosive yield.
However, these weapons are not interchangeable solutions for every underground target. Their effectiveness would depend on the geological characteristics, depth, construction and internal configuration of the facility.
Moreover, the existence of a nuclear weapon capable of attacking hardened targets does not establish that the Pentagon has selected it for use against Iran.
## Nuclear attack could undermine global non-proliferation system
Beyond the immediate military consequences, a potential American nuclear strike against Iran could have profound implications for international law, nuclear diplomacy and the global non-proliferation regime.
International lawyer and foreign policy analyst Reza Nasri has warned that using nuclear weapons against Iran could encourage other countries to reconsider their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Under Article X of the treaty, a member state has the right to withdraw if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the treaty have jeopardised its supreme national interests. A state must provide three months’ notice to other parties and the UN Security Council, explaining the extraordinary events prompting its decision.
Nasri argued that an American nuclear attack against a country that remains within the NPT could send a dangerous message to governments around the world: that abandoning nuclear weapons does not necessarily guarantee protection from nuclear aggression.
Such a precedent could encourage countries to conclude that developing their own nuclear deterrents is the only reliable way to protect themselves against powerful adversaries.
He also highlighted what he considers a fundamental inconsistency in Western nuclear policy.
Israel has never joined the NPT and is widely believed to possess an undeclared nuclear arsenal. Unlike Iran, Israel is not subject to the treaty’s comprehensive safeguards obligations as a non-nuclear-weapon state party.
A nuclear attack against Iran, therefore, could intensify criticism of the international nuclear order and undermine confidence in the fairness and credibility of existing non-proliferation arrangements.
The potential consequences would extend beyond the Middle East. Countries in Asia and Europe could reassess their security calculations, potentially accelerating nuclear proliferation and weakening international arms-control agreements.
The possibility of nuclear weapons being used against Iran would also raise difficult questions for American military personnel.
Dr Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, has argued that US military personnel have an obligation to refuse unlawful orders under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
He said this obligation would include refusing an unnecessary and unlawful order to use nuclear weapons against Iran.
The legality of any nuclear attack would depend on the circumstances, including military necessity, proportionality, distinction between civilian and military targets, and the foreseeable humanitarian consequences.
The US president has considerable authority over nuclear employment decisions, but that authority does not remove the requirement that military orders comply with applicable domestic and international law.
A nuclear explosion at Pickaxe Mountain would also present extraordinary environmental risks. Depending on the location, depth and nature of the detonation, radioactive material could contaminate surrounding areas, potentially affecting water resources, agricultural land and civilian populations.
A ground-level or shallow underground nuclear explosion could produce particularly serious radioactive fallout.
For Iran and its neighbours, the consequences could continue long after the military operation ended.
Carlson’s warning has brought renewed attention to the possibility of another American military operation against Iran, but his central allegation remains unverified.
The White House has dismissed his claims, and there is no publicly established evidence that Trump has authorised preparations for a nuclear strike against Pickaxe Mountain.
Trump’s previous comments nevertheless demonstrate that the facility remains on Washington’s list of potential military targets.
The immediate question is whether the administration will pursue another conventional military operation, intensify economic and diplomatic pressure, or attempt to negotiate a new agreement with Tehran.
Carlson argues that Vance and Witkoff are encouraging diplomacy and that an agreement remains possible. His account suggests that the president faces competing arguments within his administration, although the precise nature of those discussions has not been independently established.
For now, the distinction between threatening to destroy an underground nuclear facility and considering the use of nuclear weapons against it remains critical.
A conventional attack could still cause substantial destruction and civilian casualties. A nuclear strike, however, would cross a historic threshold, potentially transforming the conflict from a regional military confrontation into a global security crisis.
The United States remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons in warfare. A decision to use them again, particularly against a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT, could fundamentally alter international perceptions of nuclear deterrence.
As Americans vote in the midterm elections, Carlson’s allegations have therefore added another dimension to the growing debate over Trump’s Iran policy, the influence of Netanyahu on Washington and the limits of American military power.
Whether his prediction of an imminent nuclear strike proves accurate or not, the controversy has exposed the extraordinary strategic risks surrounding Pickaxe Mountain and the consequences of any decision to destroy it.
