Why Can't Israel Destroy Fordow? An Analysis of Military Capabilities

Israel’s recent military campaign against Iran’s nuclear program has achieved significant successes, yet one target remains largely intact: the heavily fortified Fordow nuclear enrichment facility ¹². Despite extensive airstrikes and advanced weaponry, the underground complex continues to operate, highlighting critical limitations in Israel’s military capabilities against hardened targets. This analysis examines why Fordow presents such a formidable challenge and what would be required to neutralize this strategic threat.

Rows of gas centrifuges inside an Iranian nuclear enrichment facility, likely the Fordow plant.

The Fordow Fortress: Engineering for Survival

The Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant represents Iran’s most sophisticated approach to protecting nuclear assets from aerial attack ³⁴. Located approximately 30 kilometers northeast of Qom in northwestern Iran, the facility was deliberately constructed to withstand even the most powerful conventional munitions available to regional powers.

The facility’s defensive architecture centers on its extraordinary depth and geological protection ²³. Intelligence reports indicate that Fordow’s enrichment halls lie 260 to 300 feet beneath the surface, embedded within a mountain that rises over 3,000 feet above sea level ³⁵. This positioning provides multiple layers of natural and artificial protection that make conventional attack extremely challenging.

Construction details reveal the facility’s hardened nature ⁶⁷. The underground complex features reinforced concrete barriers and is surrounded by multiple surface-to-air missile systems ⁸. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Director General Rafael Grossi has described visiting the site, noting it extends “half a mile underground” ².

Comparison of bunker-buster penetration capabilities versus the estimated depth of Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility

Iran’s decision to build Fordow at such depths was directly influenced by Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor and the 2007 attack on Syria’s nuclear facility ⁹. These precedents demonstrated that surface or lightly buried nuclear installations remained vulnerable to precision airstrikes, prompting Iran to invest heavily in deeply buried infrastructure.

The facility currently houses up to 2,976 centrifuges capable of uranium enrichment ⁸. Recent IAEA inspections have detected uranium enriched to 83.7 percent purity, dangerously close to the 90 percent threshold required for weapons-grade material ⁶⁸. Analysts estimate that Fordow could produce sufficient highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon within five to six days ⁶.

Timeline of key events in the Israel-Iran nuclear confrontation, highlighting Fordow facility developments

Israeli Air Power: Capabilities and Constraints

Israel’s air force possesses significant strike capabilities, centered primarily on the F-15I Ra’am fleet ¹⁰¹¹. These 66 aircraft represent Israel’s primary long-range strike platform, capable of carrying up to 23,000 pounds of munitions over distances approaching 2,800 miles without refueling ¹²¹³.

The F-15I’s configuration makes it particularly suited for deep-strike missions ¹¹¹³. Each aircraft features conformal fuel tanks that extend operational range while maintaining weapons capacity ¹³. The platform can simultaneously carry air-to-air missiles for self-defense and multiple precision-guided munitions for ground attack ¹¹.

An F-15 Strike Eagle aircraft carrying GBU-28 Paveway III bunker buster bombs, illustrating a key munition for striking hardened targets.

However, the F-15I’s bunker-busting capability faces fundamental limitations when confronting targets like Fordow ¹⁰¹⁴. The aircraft’s primary deep-penetration weapon, the GBU-28, weighs 5,000 pounds and can penetrate approximately 150 feet of earth or 15 feet of reinforced concrete ¹⁵¹⁶. While effective against many hardened targets, these specifications fall short of Fordow’s protection levels.

The GBU-28’s development history illustrates both its capabilities and limitations ¹⁵¹⁷. Originally rushed into service during Operation Desert Storm in just 28 days, the weapon utilized artillery gun barrels as casings to create a penetrating munition ¹⁵¹⁸. Despite successful employment in Iraq and subsequent conflicts, the GBU-28’s penetration depth remains insufficient for the deepest buried targets.

Israeli forces have demonstrated extensive experience with bunker-busting operations ¹⁹¹⁴. Recent strikes in Lebanon employed up to 80 GBU-31 bunker-buster munitions against Hezbollah leadership targets ¹⁹. However, these urban targets required far less penetration capability than Fordow’s mountain fortress.

The Penetration Gap: Physics vs. Engineering

The fundamental challenge Israel faces in attacking Fordow stems from basic physics and engineering constraints ²⁹. Current Israeli weapons simply cannot deliver sufficient kinetic energy to reach the facility’s operational areas through hundreds of feet of rock and reinforced concrete.

Technical analysis reveals the stark disparity between available capabilities and mission requirements ²⁰²¹. The GBU-28’s maximum earth penetration of 150 feet falls well short of Fordow’s estimated depth of 260-300 feet ¹⁶⁵. Even accounting for potential inaccuracies in depth estimates, the gap remains substantial.

Comparative diagram illustrating the penetration capabilities of BLU 109, GBU 28, and Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs.

The penetration physics become more complex when considering the facility’s construction ²¹²². Fordow’s location within solid rock, combined with reinforced concrete barriers, creates a composite target requiring significantly more penetrating power than earth-only scenarios ²²¹⁸. The facility’s designers deliberately exploited these material properties to maximize protective effectiveness.

Multiple strike scenarios have been analyzed by military experts ²⁴. Even repeated attacks using multiple GBU-28 munitions would likely only damage peripheral areas of the complex, leaving core enrichment capabilities intact ²⁷. The facility’s distributed design means that partial damage would not necessarily halt operations.

Alternative attack methods face similar constraints ⁷²³. While cyber warfare and sabotage operations have previously disrupted Iranian nuclear facilities, Fordow’s isolation and security measures make such approaches increasingly difficult ⁷. Ground-based special operations would face extreme challenges given the facility’s geographic position and defensive systems.

The GBU-57 Solution: America’s Massive Ordnance Penetrator

The United States possesses a weapon theoretically capable of threatening Fordow: the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator ²⁴⁹. This 30,000-pound munition represents the pinnacle of conventional bunker-busting technology, designed specifically for deeply buried targets that conventional weapons cannot reach.

The GBU-57’s specifications dwarf those of Israeli weapons ²⁰²¹. Weighing six times more than the GBU-28, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator can penetrate up to 200 feet of earth or 60 feet of reinforced concrete ²¹²². Its 5,342-pound explosive payload delivers devastating effects once the weapon reaches its target ²¹.

However, the GBU-57 remains exclusively American technology ²⁴⁴. Only the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber can deploy these weapons, and the United States has never transferred either the bombs or the aircraft to foreign operators ⁴²⁵. This creates an absolute dependency relationship that limits Israeli operational autonomy.

Even with American support, success against Fordow would not be guaranteed ²²⁶. Military analysts suggest that multiple GBU-57 impacts at the same point would likely be required to ensure facility destruction ⁹. The weapon has never been used in combat, introducing additional uncertainties about real-world performance ²⁶¹⁶.

The strategic implications of American bunker-buster deployment extend far beyond military effectiveness ²⁴²⁷. Such operations would represent direct U.S. involvement in strikes against Iran, potentially triggering broader regional conflict and complicating diplomatic efforts ²⁷.

Current Military Campaign: Successes and Limitations

Israel’s ongoing Operation Rising Lion has demonstrated both the reach and limitations of Israeli military power ¹²³. The campaign has successfully targeted Iran’s primary uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, causing significant damage to above-ground infrastructure and likely impairing underground operations ²³²⁸.

The operation’s scope reflects sophisticated planning and execution ²³. Over 200 Israeli aircraft participated in coordinated strikes using more than 330 munitions against approximately 100 targets ²³. The campaign successfully eliminated key Iranian military leadership and degraded missile capabilities while targeting nuclear infrastructure.

Yet Fordow remains operational despite being attacked ²³. International Atomic Energy Agency officials report no observed damage to the facility following Israeli strikes ³. This outcome underscores the fundamental challenge posed by deeply buried, hardened targets to conventional air power.

The campaign’s broader strategic success may have actually increased Fordow’s importance ⁶²⁸. With other nuclear facilities damaged or destroyed, Iran’s nuclear program becomes increasingly concentrated at sites that can continue operations ⁶. This concentration effect makes Fordow’s continued operation even more strategically significant.

Intelligence assessments suggest Iran is accelerating nuclear activities at remaining facilities ²⁸. The recent discovery of near-weapons-grade uranium at Fordow indicates the facility’s central role in any potential Iranian nuclear weapons program ⁶⁸.

Technological Alternatives and Future Developments

Several emerging technologies might eventually provide alternatives to current bunker-busting approaches ¹⁶²⁹. The U.S. Air Force is developing the GBU-72 Advanced 5K Penetrator, designed to exceed GBU-28 performance while maintaining compatibility with existing aircraft ¹⁶.

However, even advanced conventional weapons face fundamental physical limits ¹⁸. The energy required to penetrate hundreds of feet of rock and concrete may exceed what chemical explosives can deliver, regardless of weapon design improvements ¹⁸.

Nuclear bunker-busters represent one theoretical solution but carry enormous political and strategic costs ¹⁸. The B61-11 nuclear bomb possesses earth-penetrating capabilities that could theoretically reach Fordow, but nuclear weapons use would cross fundamental thresholds with catastrophic consequences ¹⁸.

Innovative delivery methods might offer future possibilities ⁷. Sustained bombardment using smaller weapons could theoretically create cumulative effects, while directed energy weapons or other exotic technologies might eventually provide new options ⁷.

Strategic Implications and Regional Balance

Fordow’s apparent invulnerability to Israeli attack creates significant strategic implications for regional security calculations ¹²⁴. Iran’s confidence in the facility’s protection may influence nuclear decision-making and diplomatic negotiations ²⁴.

The facility’s survival demonstrates the limitations of preemptive military action against determined proliferators ²⁸. Even successful campaigns like Operation Rising Lion cannot guarantee complete elimination of nuclear capabilities when adversaries invest sufficiently in protection ²⁸.

American involvement remains the critical variable in any future scenarios targeting Fordow ²⁴⁴. Israeli officials have stated they can destroy the facility, but this capability appears to require U.S. support in the form of GBU-57 munitions and potentially B-2 bomber operations ¹²⁴.

The diplomatic context surrounding potential American participation adds complexity to military planning ²⁷. While the United States has provided extensive military support to Israel, direct participation in strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities represents a significant escalation ²⁷.

Conclusion: The Persistence of Hardened Targets

Israel’s inability to independently destroy Fordow reflects fundamental realities about modern military technology and strategic defense ²⁴. Despite possessing one of the world’s most capable air forces and extensive experience in precision strikes, certain targets remain beyond the reach of conventional military power ⁴.

The Fordow case illustrates the continuing relevance of passive defense in an era dominated by precision strike capabilities ³⁷. Iran’s investment in deeply buried infrastructure has created genuine protection against regional military threats, forcing adversaries to seek either alternative approaches or external support ⁷.

This situation may persist indefinitely unless technological developments or strategic circumstances change dramatically ¹⁸. The physics of penetrating extreme depths through hardened materials creates challenges that may exceed conventional weapons’ capabilities regardless of future improvements ¹⁸.

For Israeli strategic planners, Fordow represents both a immediate challenge and a broader lesson about the limits of military solutions to proliferation threats ¹²⁸. While military action can delay and degrade nuclear programs, completely eliminating determined proliferation efforts may require sustained international cooperation and diplomatic engagement alongside military pressure ²⁸.

The facility’s continued operation serves as a stark reminder that in the ongoing competition between offensive strike capabilities and defensive hardening, engineering and geography can still provide decisive advantages against even the most sophisticated military forces ²³.