“Midnight Hammer” – a Fordow’s Bunker Buster or just Busted [i]

The reality is that the location of Iran’s 60% enriched uranium, along with key components of the program, is known only to a select few within Iran. Moreover, there are underground facilities believed to be even deeper than those at Natanz or Fordow — capable of continuing enrichment activities beyond the reach of current conventional weapons.

In short, the nuclear game is far from over.

The USA bombing the Iranian Nuclear facilities – Aftermath

– EXCELLENT ILLUSTRATIONS on original

Mike Mihajlovic, Jun 28, 2025, Black Mountain Analysis

The United States has conducted a series of airstrikes targeting key Iranian nuclear facilities – specifically, three high-value sites, with at least three B-2 Spirit bombers as well as a salvo of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines. In total, 14 GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) ( 12 for Fordow and 2 for Natanz) were deployed, along with 30 cruise missiles.

According to President Trump, who often portrays himself as a strongman unafraid to use force, the operation was extremely successful and all goals achieved, meaning the Iranian nuclear program went up in ashes. However, beneath the rhetoric and posturing, serious doubts remain about whether such strikes could meaningfully degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities, especially when it comes to deeply embedded sites like Fordow. cspsbilities

At best, this could amount to little more than strategic theater, a carefully orchestrated display of power aimed at sending a political message rather than achieving lasting military results. In effect, the U.S. may have executed a strike based on an Israeli wish list: using bombs to project strength while avoiding actions that could trigger broader conflict.

For neoconservatives and proponents of an aggressive foreign policy, such a scenario would be hailed as a success—proof that decisive military action can shape geopolitical outcomes. Yet, Iran, a nation known for its strategic patience and resilience, chose to respond publicly in a controlled manner, targeting the US bases in Qatar. What will happen next is that they quietly assess the damage, reinforce their underground infrastructure, and continue their nuclear work beyond the reach of even the most powerful conventional weapons.

The world may be led to believe that the “threat” has been neutralized, for now. But history suggests that such illusions rarely last. Eventually, the same concerns will resurface, bringing the crisis back into the global spotlight.

“The roaring mountain just gave birth to a mouse.”

In the case of a high-profile strike, such as the one on Fordow, the symbolic value often overshadows the physical outcome. A site as hardened and deeply buried as Fordow—originally constructed within a mountain to withstand conventional attacks. It can’t be easily neutralized even with specialized munitions like the MOP or a direct hit from a hypersonic ballistic missile.

Yet, even then, the effectiveness depends on:

Intelligence accuracy: Was the target still active?
Timing: Was the infrastructure recently evacuated or relocated?
Munition capability: Did the weapon used have sufficient penetration depth and explosive yield?

If the facility was decommissioned, emptied, or redundant, then the operation becomes more about message than material damage, a geopolitical performance aimed at deterring adversaries and reassuring allies.

Optical Effect Over Outcome

Such events often produce more theater than transformation. The media cycle amplifies the action, leaders issue statements of resolve, flags are waved, and bombs and missiles are launched – but the real question remains: What was actually destroyed?

This is where the gap between perception and reality widens. If core infrastructure remains intact or the targeted regime adapts quickly, the long-term strategic balance may not shift significantly. In this light, the operation resembles a symbolic punctuation mark in an ongoing diplomatic struggle rather than a decisive blow.

While political rhetoric and military parades dominate headlines, financial markets often act as the first honest arbiter of whether a crisis has real economic consequences, including:

A spike in oil prices could signal concerns over regional stability.
Currency fluctuations could reflect investor confidence (or lack thereof) in involved nations.
Defense stocks may rise on expectations of increased military spending.

Markets don’t care about slogans or intercepted missiles shown in shaky phone videos; rather, they react to risk, uncertainty, and real shifts in power dynamics. So far, as the punches were exchanged, the market is not reacting “violently”.

The Depth

How deep is Fordow?

Open sources provide at least three distinct estimates for the depth of the Fordow facility: approximately 60–90 meters, 80–100 meters, and even up to 500–800 meters. These discrepancies arise from differences in measurement methodologies, limitations of satellite imagery, and deliberate information obfuscation by the Iranian government. Until engineering plans are leaked or the IAEA gains direct access to the site for inspection, the precise depth of Fordow remains uncertain.

Still, it is worth examining why Iran might engineer such a deeply buried facility, possibly extending toward the half-kilometer mark, and why that possibility alarms the Pentagon more than it does Israel.

The 60–90 Meter Estimate:
Outlets such as Deutsche Welle, Economic Times, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) estimate Fordow’s depth based on the thickness of the mountain rock layer above the main halls. In practical terms, this reflects the vertical cover, like measuring the height of “floor-1” from the surface. Their estimates place the depth at 60–90 meters.

The 80–100 Meter Estimate:
Moneycontrol cites a slightly deeper figure, likely accounting for a broader interpretation of structural depth rather than just the overhead rock.

The ~100 Meter Estimate via Satellite DEM:
Bloomberg reportedly used digital elevation models (DEMs) from commercial satellite imagery (Planet Labs and Maxar) to measure the distance from the entrance tunnel’s opening to the presumed facility roof. This method places Fordow around 100 meters deep. However, it should be noted that small angular errors, such as a ±3° deviation in tunnel slope, can introduce measurement discrepancies of dozens of meters. Additionally, some sources introduce further variance when rounding feet to meters.

Given these limitations, depth estimates are best treated as approximations unless corroborated by direct data……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Conclusion

Israel, acting without direct U.S. involvement, does not possess the necessary means to guarantee the destruction of the Fordow facility, even if its depth is “only” around 90 meters. While Israel has advanced airpower and precision munitions, it lacks the deep-penetration capability required to reach and neutralize such hardened underground infrastructure.

By contrast, the United States is undoubtedly capable of achieving a “mission kill”—disabling the site by targeting entrances, ventilation systems, and power nodes. However, a “layout kill” (the complete structural destruction of the underground halls) can only be reliably achieved if the facility is no deeper than approximately 35-40 m. Beyond that depth, even the GBU-57 MOP’s effectiveness is significantly reduced by the geological protection offered by dense rock formations.

So, how does the MOP manufacturer claim penetration of 60 m of concrete?

The U.S. spent considerable time and resources developing the MOP. Testing was conducted not far from the site where the first nuclear bomb test was previously carried out.

I am not aware of the Pentagon publicly sharing extensive results of these tests, but it is reasonable to believe that the intention was to demonstrate the MOP’s ability to penetrate to a depth comparable to the estimated depths of key Iranian nuclear sites, as well as underground facilities in North Korea and China.

It is reasonable to assume that U.S. assessments of destruction are based not only on classified intelligence but also on rudimentary analysis of test results shown in publicly released videos. However, the question remains: who should we believe?

The media landscape offers little clarity, with both pro-Trump and anti-Trump outlets presenting conflicting narratives. Analysts continue to assess the situation from multiple angles, and it may take time before a more definitive picture emerges.

Iranian sources contribute to the confusion, often contradicting themselves, with reports ranging from minimal damage to claims of major destruction. This inconsistency raises questions about intent: Is Iran attempting to downplay the impact of any strikes, or is it deliberately obscuring the true status of its nuclear infrastructure?

From a strategic perspective, there are clear incentives for each side to shape the narrative in their favor. By asserting total destruction, the U.S. can project military dominance and suggest the permanent end of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, at least for public consumption.

Meanwhile, Iranian claims of localized damage could serve as a deliberate distraction, shifting attention away from deeper, more resilient parts of its program. In this context, everyone has a stake in letting the dust settle, allowing ambiguity to work in their favor.

In short, the nuclear game is far from over. If anything, it has merely entered a new phase—one marked by strategic misdirection, information warfare, and long-term resilience planning.

The bottom line, summed up in one sentence about the current equation between the U.S., Israel, and Iran: “the wolves are fed, and all the cattle are accounted for”.

Edited by Piquet (EditPiquet@gmail.com)