In recent headlines, speculation has circulated regarding why the United States military refrains from deploying bunker buster bombs, also known as earth-penetrating munitions, against Iran’s Isfahan nuclear facility. Let's delve into the strategic, political, and technical reasons behind this choice, exploring broader issues such as military strategy, non-proliferation, and global security.

What Are Bunker Buster Bombs and Why Are They Not Used in Isfahan?

Bunker buster bombs are specialized munitions designed to penetrate deep into the earth or concrete before detonating, destroying underground facilities. While effective against fortified targets, their use is never a simple decision. The Isfahan nuclear site in Iran is heavily protected and positioned to minimize vulnerability to such attacks.

Strategic Concerns: Escalation and Retaliation

Deploying bunker busters could be perceived as an act of war, risking immediate escalation with Iran and potentially destabilizing the broader Middle East. The U.S. military weighs:

• Diplomatic fallout with global powers and regional allies
• Retaliatory threats from Iran and its proxies across the region
• Potential for a wider conflict, risking lives and energy security

Technical Challenges of Striking Underground Facilities

Modern nuclear facilities like Isfahan are built deep underground, often beneath layers of rock or reinforced concrete. Bunker busters may not guarantee complete destruction, especially given advancements in Iran’s facility design and the unpredictability of collateral damage.

Political and Legal Constraints: International Law and Non-Proliferation

Engaging Iran's nuclear facilities with military force raises questions under international law, particularly regarding:

• Sovereignty and self-defense
• Risks of nuclear contamination from damaged reactors or storage
• Precedent for future military strikes against non-compliant states

Political backlash and erosion of support for non-proliferation frameworks (like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) are serious longer-term concerns.

Alternatives to Military Strikes: Sanctions, Cyber Operations, and Diplomacy

Economic and Diplomatic Pressure

The U.S. and its allies often favor:

• Targeted sanctions that restrict funding or technical inputs for nuclear work
• Diplomatic negotiations (e.g., JCPOA/Iran nuclear deal strategies)

Cyber Operations

The covert Stuxnet worm operation is a famous example of using cyber weapons instead of bombs to disrupt Iran’s enrichment capabilities without open conflict.

Risks and Unintended Consequences

Militarily striking nuclear facilities could:

• Lead to environmental hazards and civilian casualties
• Undermine fragile peace processes in the region
• Encourage Iran to speed up or harden its nuclear program further

FAQ: Why Isn’t the U.S. Using Bunker Busters on Isfahan?

Q1. Are bunker buster bombs effective against fortified nuclear targets?
They can damage facilities, but success is not guaranteed against well-designed underground bunkers.

Q2. Would a strike on Isfahan solve the proliferation problem?
Unlikely. Physical strikes often delay, rather than prevent, nuclear capability and may accelerate adversary efforts.

Q3. Are there past examples of such weapon use?
Yes, bunker busters were used in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those contexts had different risk profiles and strategic goals.

Conclusion: The Calculated Restraint of U.S. Military Strategy

Choosing not to use bunker buster bombs against sites like Isfahan illustrates the complex calculus the U.S. faces: balancing military effectiveness with strategic, legal, and moral considerations, all while navigating the chessboard of international relations.

---

This article was inspired by the headline: '美媒爆料美军为何不用钻地弹袭击伊斯法罕核设施 - 凤凰网'.