Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday declared that bombs and missiles could not force Iran into submission, warning that internal divisions posed a greater danger to the country's resilience than external military attacks. His remarks came amid reports that the United States was considering fresh strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and energy infrastructure, including the possible deployment of the most powerful conventional bomb in the American military's arsenal.
Addressing a ceremony marking National Nurses Day in Tehran, Pezeshkian urged Iranians to maintain national solidarity in the face of mounting military, economic and political pressure. He cautioned that external adversaries could exploit domestic disagreements and economic difficulties to weaken the country from within, even if direct military action failed to achieve its objectives. "You cannot force a society to surrender with bombs and missiles, but if we are divided and divided from within, the enemy will achieve his goal," Pezeshkian said, according to Iran's official IRNA news agency. He called upon government officials to strengthen public confidence, address economic grievances and avoid statements or actions that could deepen social divisions.
The Iranian President's warning coincided with reports that American military planners had developed additional options for attacking Iran, including strikes on its energy infrastructure and suspected nuclear installations. CNN, citing US officials familiar with military planning discussions, reported that the Pentagon was examining the possible use of the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, commonly known as the Mother of All Bombs. The options could be presented to President Donald Trump if he decides to resume military operations against Tehran, although no decision to launch fresh attacks has been announced.
𝗨𝗦 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗵 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
The reported American planning represents a potential escalation in the prolonged confrontation between Washington and Tehran, which has involved military exchanges, economic restrictions, attacks on strategic infrastructure and disruptions to maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf. According to CNN, the additional options include targeting Iranian energy facilities and suspected nuclear sites, including an underground installation known as Pickaxe Mountain.
The facility has attracted attention because it is believed to be protected by substantial layers of rock, potentially making it difficult to destroy through conventional aerial bombardment. American officials have reportedly examined whether available weapons could penetrate the site's underground defences and cause sufficient damage to disrupt any nuclear-related activity taking place there.
One option under consideration is the GBU-43/B, a weapon weighing approximately 21,600 pounds, or 9,800 kilograms. It is the largest non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal and is designed to generate an exceptionally powerful blast over a wide area. However, its potential use against fortified underground installations has raised doubts among military officials because the weapon was not developed primarily for penetrating deeply buried structures.
A source familiar with American military planning told CNN that the bomb was effective for large-area clearance but was not designed as a deep-penetration warhead. Officials reportedly questioned whether its explosive force could penetrate the layers of granite believed to protect facilities at Pickaxe Mountain.
The distinction is important because the destructive power of a bomb does not necessarily determine its effectiveness against underground targets. Deeply buried installations generally require specialised penetrating weapons capable of travelling through rock or reinforced concrete before detonating. A large surface-level explosion may cause extensive destruction above ground without necessarily reaching protected facilities far below the surface.
The reported deliberations suggest that American military planners are examining the operational limitations of different weapons as they assess options for further action against Iran. The exact location, construction and activities associated with the suspected underground facility have not been independently established.
𝗣𝗲𝘇𝗲𝘀𝗵𝗸𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
Pezeshkian devoted much of his address to the importance of domestic cohesion, arguing that Iran's adversaries were attempting to exploit the country's economic and administrative difficulties to generate public dissatisfaction. He said shortages of electricity, water and gas, fuel-related problems, environmental challenges, banking difficulties, budget deficits and pension fund pressures had all been regarded by Iran's opponents as possible sources of instability.
According to the President, those calculations had underestimated the resilience of Iranian society. He maintained that public solidarity had enabled the country to withstand external pressure despite continuing difficulties in essential services and economic management. Pezeshkian said Iran's adversaries were also seeking to increase pressure by restricting transport and communication routes, making it necessary for the government to maintain public confidence while responding to citizens' needs.
His remarks reflected the challenges facing the Iranian administration as it attempts to manage the consequences of military confrontation alongside longstanding economic problems. Inflation, infrastructure shortages, fiscal pressures and restrictions on international trade have placed considerable strain on households and businesses. The President's emphasis on unity indicated that the government regards domestic stability as a central element of its response to external threats.
Pezeshkian also paid tribute to nurses, medical personnel and others who had continued working under difficult conditions. He praised their sacrifices and acknowledged the contribution of those involved in protecting the country's security and territorial integrity. Addressing government officials, he urged them to avoid conduct that could undermine national solidarity and to use available resources to strengthen public trust.
𝗡𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗱
The latest developments come against the backdrop of the continuing dispute over Iran's nuclear programme. Washington has repeatedly stated that preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons remains a central objective of American policy. Iranian authorities, however, maintain that their nuclear activities are intended for peaceful purposes and reject allegations that the country is seeking to develop a nuclear arsenal.
The confrontation intensified following US and Israeli military operations against Iran earlier this year, subsequent Iranian retaliation and American restrictions affecting maritime trade. Although diplomatic efforts have periodically resumed, significant disagreements remain over Iran's nuclear activities, sanctions, security guarantees and the conditions necessary for a lasting settlement.
Trump has repeatedly maintained that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. However, the reported consideration of additional military strikes raises questions about whether further attacks would advance that objective or deepen the confrontation. Damage to nuclear facilities could disrupt activities at targeted locations, but it could also complicate international verification efforts and reduce Tehran's willingness to cooperate with external monitoring arrangements.
The possibility of strikes against energy infrastructure introduces another dimension to the dispute. Iran is a significant oil producer, and its petroleum installations are important to both the domestic economy and international energy markets. Attacks on refineries, export terminals or associated infrastructure could affect production and supply, while also creating risks of retaliation against American interests or regional energy facilities.
𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆
The reported military discussions come as the Trump administration faces growing pressure to bring the confrontation with Iran to an end. With the November midterm elections approaching, the prolonged conflict and its economic consequences have become increasingly significant issues for Washington.
CNN reported that administration advisers had examined military options that could allow the United States to demonstrate its capabilities while creating conditions for an eventual withdrawal from the confrontation. However, officials have also been preparing for the possibility of Iranian retaliation if Trump authorises additional attacks.
The President has expressed reluctance to deploy American ground troops in Iran, a position that places greater emphasis on aerial operations and other forms of military pressure. Yet the effectiveness of such an approach remains uncertain, particularly when the potential targets include heavily fortified underground facilities.
A further escalation could also complicate diplomatic efforts involving regional intermediaries. Previous attempts to narrow differences between Washington and Tehran have been hindered by disagreements over nuclear restrictions, sanctions relief and security arrangements. Additional military action could make those disputes more difficult to resolve.
𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁
The prospect of renewed American strikes has implications extending beyond Iran and the United States. West Asian governments remain concerned about the possibility of retaliatory attacks on military installations, energy infrastructure and maritime routes. Any expansion of hostilities could threaten regional security and disrupt international trade.
The Strait of Hormuz remains particularly important because it connects the Persian Gulf with international shipping routes and serves as a critical passage for energy exports. The conflict has already affected maritime traffic through the region, and further military operations could complicate efforts to restore normal commercial movement.
For energy-importing economies, including India, prolonged instability in the Gulf presents risks through higher transportation costs, uncertainty over petroleum supplies and fluctuations in international oil prices. The region is also home to a large Indian expatriate population, making the safety of civilians and the continuity of essential services important concerns for New Delhi.
The reported American military planning has therefore introduced another element of uncertainty into an already fragile regional security environment. While the development of additional strike options does not necessarily mean that an attack is imminent, it demonstrates that Washington continues to examine military alternatives despite the unresolved diplomatic questions.
Pezeshkian's remarks, meanwhile, indicate that Tehran intends to maintain its public position of rejecting military coercion while placing renewed emphasis on domestic solidarity. By warning that internal divisions could achieve what bombs and missiles cannot, the Iranian President sought to connect the country's external security challenges with the need to address economic grievances and preserve public confidence.
The immediate course of the confrontation will depend on whether Washington proceeds with additional military operations, whether Tehran responds with further retaliation and whether diplomatic channels can produce an acceptable framework for de-escalation. For now, the Iranian leadership has signalled that it will resist demands for surrender, even as the possibility of another round of military strikes keeps the region on edge.