US Uses ‘Bunker Busters’ Amid Fears of Iran’s Deep Underground Weapons

The reported killing of Iran’s intelligence minister in an overnight strike attributed to Israel marks a significant escalation in the shadow war between the two countries, unfolding against a backdrop of heightened regional tensions and ongoing conflicts. The strike, which has not been officially confirmed by Israel, comes as the United States continues to target what it describes as Iranian-backed groups and infrastructure in the region, raising concerns about a wider conflict. The leverage of powerful bunker-busting munitions by the U.S., as reported by the BBC, suggests an assessment that Iran is heavily fortifying its military assets.

The Bunker Buster Strategy and Implications

Weapons analyst Chris Partridge notes that the U.S. Deployment of 5,000lb bunker busters – specifically the GBU-72 Advanced 5K Penetrator – indicates a belief that Iran is storing weapons deep underground. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has been striking targets as part of “Operation Epic Fury,” aimed at dismantling the Iranian regime’s security apparatus and prioritizing locations posing an imminent threat. The GBU-72, first tested in 2021, is designed to overcome hardened, deeply buried targets and can be deployed from both fighter and bomber aircraft, offering military planners flexibility. The ability to deploy these munitions from F-15E Strike Eagles, rather than relying solely on B1-Bs stationed at RAF Fairford in England, expands operational options.

Actors and Stakes: A Complex Web of Interests

The primary actors are, of course, Israel and Iran, locked in a decades-long struggle characterized by proxy conflicts, espionage, and occasional direct confrontation. Israel views Iran’s nuclear program and its support for regional militant groups – including Hamas and Hezbollah – as existential threats. Iran, in turn, sees Israel as an occupying force and a key ally of the United States, which it views as its principal adversary. The United States finds itself in a delicate balancing act, seeking to deter Iran from further escalation while also reassuring its allies, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. The recent strikes by CENTCOM, while aimed at Iranian proxies, also serve as a signal to Iran regarding the potential consequences of its actions. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has responded with attacks, claiming to have targeted Tel Aviv with missiles, including those carrying cluster munitions, as reported on social media. CENTCOM has acknowledged Iran’s claims of destroying U.S. Fighter jets, though the veracity of these claims remains unconfirmed.

Historical Context: A Long-Simmering Conflict

The animosity between Israel and Iran dates back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which ousted the U.S.-backed Shah and established an Islamic Republic vehemently opposed to Israel’s existence. Iran’s support for Palestinian militant groups and its development of ballistic missiles have further fueled tensions. Israel has repeatedly warned that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and has been widely suspected of carrying out covert operations, including assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program. The current escalation follows a pattern of tit-for-tat attacks and retaliations, often conducted through proxies. The assassination of Qassem Soleimani, a top Iranian general, by the U.S. In 2020, brought the two countries to the brink of war. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, offered a temporary respite, but the U.S. Withdrawal from the agreement in 2018 under the Trump administration led to a resurgence of tensions. CENTCOM has issued warnings to civilians to avoid ports used by Iranian forces, indicating a potential expansion of operations.

The Role of Proxies and Regional Dynamics

The conflict between Israel and Iran is not solely a bilateral affair. It is deeply intertwined with regional dynamics, including the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Iran supports Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and Houthi rebels in Yemen, providing them with weapons, training, and funding. Israel views these groups as threats to its security and has repeatedly clashed with them. The war in Gaza, triggered by Hamas’s October 7th attack on Israel, has further complicated the situation, with Iran providing support to Hamas and Israel vowing to prevent Iran from gaining a stronger foothold in the region. Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. Ally, has also been seeking to de-escalate tensions with Iran, and the two countries restored diplomatic relations in 2023, brokered by China. Still, the recent escalation raises questions about the sustainability of this rapprochement.

What’s Confirmed vs. Unclear

Confirmed: The U.S. Is conducting strikes against targets in Iran and Syria as part of Operation Epic Fury. Iran has launched retaliatory attacks against Israel. The U.S. Is utilizing bunker-busting munitions. Civilian ports potentially used by Iranian forces have been identified, prompting warnings from CENTCOM.

Unclear: The extent of damage caused by the strikes. The specific targets hit in the overnight strike attributed to Israel, and whether the intelligence minister was indeed killed. The full scope of Iran’s response. The long-term impact of the escalation on regional stability. The veracity of Iran’s claims regarding the destruction of U.S. Fighter jets.

Procedural Next Steps and Potential Scenarios

The immediate next steps are likely to involve continued monitoring of the situation by the United States and its allies. Diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions are also expected, potentially involving mediation by countries such as Qatar and Oman. The United Nations Security Council could convene to discuss the situation, but any meaningful action is likely to be blocked by Russia and China, which have close ties to Iran. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will continue to monitor Iran’s nuclear program, but its ability to verify compliance with the JCPOA is limited. The potential scenarios range from a limited exchange of strikes to a full-scale regional war. A key factor will be whether either side miscalculates the other’s intentions or whether the conflict spirals out of control due to unintended consequences. The current situation underscores the fragility of regional security and the urgent need for a diplomatic solution.