An anti-tunic bomb thrown over the Forto nuclear installation is an option of Trump in the Israel-Iran war. What are the other variants

Washington does not have many options about the war between Israel and Iran. The Trump administration could press for diplomacy, so far uncertain, or could directly involve the US in conflict, to destroy the main target targeted by Israel. A variant of compromise is possible, but that would mean that the main objective of Israel in this war will never be completed, the New York Times and BBC writes.

President Donald Trump analyzes a possible critical decision on the war between Israel and Iran: if it is more directly involved, helping Israel to destroy the Fortdo nuclear enrichment installation, which only the largest American “anti-good” bomb, launched by the American Bombardie.

If it decides to help Israel in this way, the United States will become a direct participant in a new conflict in the Middle East – exactly the type of war promised to avoid.

The ambiguity in his public statements has increased the feeling of uncertainty, as the battles intensify in the Middle East – as well as his departure from the G7 summit in Canada.

“As soon as I leave here, we will do something,” Trump said before leaving. “But I have to get out of here,” he added. What he intends to do is unclear.

According to an American official, Trump at one point encouraged his emissary for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, and JD Vance Vice President to offer to meet the Iranians.

But on Monday, he announced that “everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran” – not exactly a sign of diplomatic progress.

The diplomatic solution

If Vance and Witkoff would meet the Iranians, officials say, the Iranian interlocutor would probably be the country's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, who played a key role in the 2015 nuclear agreement with the Obama administration and who knows every element of the Iran's nuclear complex.

Araghchi, who was Witkoff's counterpart in recent negotiations, reported his opening to an agreement on Monday.

But if this diplomatic effort fails or if the Iranians are not willing to completely give up the nuclear program, the president will still have the option to order the destruction of the fort and other nuclear installations.

Experts claim that there is only one weapon for this task. It is called Massive Ordnance penetrating, or GBU-57, and weighs so much-13,600 kilograms-that it can only be transported by a B-2 bomber.

Israel has neither the weapon nor the bomber needed to lift and bring it over the target.

If Trump refrains from pursuing this target, it could mean that the main objective of Israel in this war will never be completed.

Variants of destruction of the Forto installation

“Fordo has always been at the center of this operation,” explained the New York Times Brett McGurk, who worked on issues related to the Middle East for four successive American presidents from George W. Bush to Joe Biden.

“If this ends with the forto still enriching (uranium), then it is not a strategic gain,” he warned.

US exercises have led to the conclusion that a single bomb would not solve the problem.

In fact, any attack on the fort should take place in waves, with B-2 aircraft launching a bomb after another in the same hole. And the operation should be performed by an American pilot and crew.

There could be other alternatives to bombardment, although they are not safe.

If the energy of the Forddo complex is interrupted, by sabotage or bombing, the centrifuges that rotate at supersonic speeds could be damaged or destroyed.

Rafael Grossi, the general manager of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Monday that this could have happened at the other important uranium enrichment center, Natanz.

Israel interrupted the power supply of the power plant on Friday, and Grossi said this made the centrifuge get out of control.

Increasing

Trump rarely talks about the fort, but he occasionally alludes to GBU-57, sometimes telling counselors that he ordered his development.

This is not fair, notes the New York Times. The United States started designing the weapon in 2004, during the administration George W. Bush, especially to collapse the mountains that protect some of the most protected nuclear facilities in Iran and North Korea.

However, it was tested during Trump's first term and added to Arsenal.

Since Bush administration, Netanyahu has been pressuring for the United States to provide these bombs, without any result.

But people who have spoken to Trump in recent months say that the subject has repeatedly appeared in his conversations with the Israeli Prime Minister.

When Trump was asked about this subject, he usually avoided a direct answer, writes the American daily.

Now the pressure is high.

Former Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, who resigned after a break with Netanyahu, said on Monday that “the job should be done, by Israel, by the United States”, an apparent reference to the fact that the bomb should be launched by an American pilot in an American plane.

He said Trump has “the option of changing the Middle East and influencing the world.”

And Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican of South Carolina, told CBS on Sunday that “if diplomacy is not successful”, he will “urged President Trump to go to the end to make sure that when this operation is completed, nothing will be left in Iran.”

“If that means supply bombs, we provide bombs,” he said, adding, in a clear reference to Massive Ordnance penetrating.

Divisions in the party

But Republicans are not united in this opinion, writes the New York Times. And the party discussion on the use of one of the most powerful pentagon weapons to help one of America's closest allies highlighted a much deeper division.

The anti-interventionist wing of the party claims that the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan should show why the US should no longer get involved in a new war in the Middle East.

Tucker Carlson, a porch of this camp, wrote that the United States should “give up Israel” and “let him take his own wars.”

“If Israel wants to wear this war, he has every right to do so,” he continued. “It is a sovereign country and can do what it wants. But not with the support of America,” he said.

At the Pentagon, the opinions are divided for other reasons.

Elbridge A. Colby, the undersecretary of defense for politics, the third Pentagon post, has long argues that every military resource dedicated to the Middle East is diverted from the true priority – the Pacific Region and the isolation of China.

A compromise

A Trump variant is to maintain the current course, a compromise, which has included support for Israel, but not direct involvement.

American destroyers and land rocket batteries already help Israel to defend themselves against Iranian reprisals. There are arguments. Climbing comes with significant and potentially defining risks for Trump's inheritance.

Iran has already threatened to attack the American bases in the region if, as it is now, Washington supports the defense of Israel.

The risk of possible American victims would probably lead to the exponential increase of the insulation argument Maga, which, in turn, could increase the pressure on Trump to withdraw and urge Netanyahu to end the offensive faster.

It is likely that some of Trump's advisers in the National Security Council will warn him to do nothing that could increase the intensity of Israel attacks in Iran in the next few days.

Trump administration's restraint was visible.

Netanyahu claimed that the elimination of the Supreme leader of Iran, Ali Khamena, would end the conflict, would not intensify it.

However, an American official informed some press agencies at the end of the week that Trump said it was against such an action.