We try to fix Iran while our own cities rot — Genius.
What's more important at this time in history. Blowing up Iran's nuclear ambitions or rebuilding our once great American Cities?
Strategic Hesitation vs. Escalation Risk
Trump delays decision: As of June 19, President Trump has given himself a two‑week window to weigh whether to join Israel’s campaign especially amid warnings that targeting Fordow could spiral into a “another Libya” scenario of long-term instability
Diplomacy still on the table: Though aligning with Israel’s strategy in rhetoric, Trump is maintaining U.S.–Iran diplomatic channels, aiming for a deal while reinforcing U.S. forces in the region to deter escalation .
Why Fordow Is a Special Case
Deeply fortified: Fordow sits roughly 80–300 ft beneath a mountain near Qom beyond the destructive reach of Israeli munitions.
Need for U.S. bunker-busters: Only the U.S. possesses the GBU‑57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (“MOP”) and B‑2 stealth bombers capable of penetrating that depth.
Risk vs. reward: Even the MOP may require multiple hits and wouldn’t eliminate Iran’s nuclear knowledge.
Domestic & International Constraints
War-weariness in Washington: Trump’s MAGA base, Congress, and advisors are wary of open-ended wars, fearing a repeat of years of “nation building” failures.
Global diplomatic pressure: European leaders, Russia, and Gulf states—along with U.S. allies—are actively pushing back against escalation .
What U.S. Might Do
Provide munitions & refueling: The U.S. could supply bunker-busters, mid-air aerial refueling, and intelligence support; even if not directly bombing .
Limited strikes: U.S. could carry out targeted precision attacks on Fordow using MOPs; while avoiding full ground deployment
Diplomatic leverage: The mere threat of U.S. airstrikes could strengthen negotiations, though Iran’s negotiators have paused talks amid the conflict .
Broader Consequences & Risks
Regional blowback, Iran may retaliate by targeting U.S. troops, closing the Strait of Hormuz, or activating proxy forces. Even a successful strike may only delay enrichment. This one seems to be the least likely outcome, in my opinion!
Summary
The U.S. is walking a tightrope—balancing support for Israel’s aim to degrade Iran’s nuclear program with deep concern over long-term strategic, humanitarian, and diplomatic costs. Destroying Fordow would require U.S. military assets—and while that could offer a near-term setback to Iran’s enrichment, it comes with high risk of broader escalation and questionable lasting impact.
At present, Washington appears to favor a calibrated approach: deterrence and diplomatic leverage, with strikes as a last resort—and only if it can be limited. The next two weeks (mid‑June 19 to early July 2025) are therefore critical. The reckoning won’t just test military muscle—it will define whether the U.S. prioritizes containment, diplomacy, or open confrontation.
My Take
First off, let’s clear the air: We’ve been here before.
WMDs. Regime change. “Surgical” strikes that somehow turn into 20-year war marriages. And every time, the same clowns promise it’ll be quick, clean, and necessary for “national security.” Spoiler alert: They lie. You don’t blow up a hardened underground nuclear facility with a precision tweet and a prayer. You need bunker busters the size of Buicks and stealth bombers that cost more than your hometown’s entire GDP. And guess who’s the only country with that kind of hardware?
Yep. Us.
So let me say this louder for the folks in the Pentagon’s reality-denial department:
If we bomb Fordow, we better be damn sure we’re ready for what comes after. Because this isn’t just hitting a building; it’s pulling the pin on a region already soaked in jet fuel.