Why did Trump bring up the attack on Mount Klang again? The dangers of an American ground attack on Iran

Donald Trump has once again raised speculations about the next stage of the US military confrontation with Iran by suggesting the possibility of an attack on Mount Klang near the Natanz nuclear facility.

According to the report of Ambassador Arjan's international reporter, in an interview with Newsmax, US President Donald Trump once again brought up the US attack on Iran's Kalang Mountain and said that the US is investigating Kalang Mountain and may have to target this area.

He also claimed that Washington's goal is to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; However, in the same statement, Trump denied using nuclear weapons against Iran and said that he does not intend to send US ground forces to Iran. These positions show that the threat of an air attack and the decision to enter on the ground are two separate issues, at least at the level of the American president's public statements.

Why does Trump want to attack "Klang Mountain"?

The attack on Mount Klang is not a sign of a reliable strategy from the US

Kahlang Mountain, known as "Pickaxe Mountain" in English, is a series of fortified underground tunnels about two kilometers south of the Natanz enrichment facility. The importance of this area for Washington comes from the possibility of its connection with Iran's nuclear activities and its strong underground position; A position that can make it difficult to target the complex with conventional attacks.

The American Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has reported an increase in construction activities, strengthening of tunnel entrances and changes in the access routes of this complex in the analysis of satellite images published in September 2026.

However, the center emphasized that the available images alone cannot confirm or deny the claim that the centrifuges were moved inside Klang Mountain.

From this point of view, the repetition of Trump's threats can be seen in the context of Washington's attempt to maintain military pressure and emphasize the remaining option of attacking facilities that, from the American point of view, may play a role in Iran's nuclear program in the future.

Why is the attack on Mount Klang a complicated mission for America?

One of the reasons for America's attention to Kalang Mountain is the difficulty of damaging the facilities that are located deep in the ground and in the heart of strong stone structures.

According to the CSIS assessment, the granite structure and depth of this complex can limit the use of even the heaviest conventional munitions penetrating underground fortifications. The center has warned that military strikes may weaken or temporarily disable the facility, but its complete destruction cannot be guaranteed.

This think tank has emphasized in its analysis that repeated attacks on nuclear infrastructures, without a verifiable solution to resolve the dispute, is not considered a stable and sustainable solution.

What are the dangers of the presence of US ground forces in Iran?

Sending ground forces to Iran, if realized, can change the nature of the conflict from limited and vertical attacks to a more complex stage of direct confrontation. The first danger of such an action is the increase in the possibility of casualties of American forces.

Forces deployed in Iran may be exposed to direct conflict and need continuous support, evacuation of wounded and provision of equipment to maintain their security.

The second risk is geographical and logistical difficulties. Operations in mountainous areas or around underground facilities, due to limited access routes, fortifications and the complexity of the environment, can become a longer mission than originally planned.

If the goal is simply to damage a facility, sending in ground forces is not necessarily an easier or less expensive way to attack from afar. If the mission extends to physical control or inspection of an underground complex, the level of difficulty and the amount of military commitment can also increase.

The third risk is the possibility of the conflict spreading to other regions and increasing pressure on American forces and interests in the region. The ground entry may be seen by Iran as a serious escalation of the confrontation and provide the ground for a reciprocal reaction.

In this case, the consequences of the operation will no longer be limited to Kahlang Mountain and may affect the security of the region, trade routes, and the political and diplomatic situation.

In addition, the American government will have to decide on the duration of the presence of the troops, the criteria for the end of the mission and the way they will leave; Issues that can increase political and military costs if the operation is prolonged.

the threat of a ground attack; Definitive decision or pressure tool?

Despite Trump's repeated threats, his recent statements alone do not indicate that a definite decision has been taken to send ground forces to Iran.

In this context, Reuters stated in its report on October 16 that Trump, while raising the possibility of attacking Mount Klang, still does not intend to send US ground forces to Iran. Therefore, a distinction must be made between the possibility of expanding airstrikes and the initiation of ground operations.

From a strategic point of view, repeatedly planning the possibility of an attack can increase political and psychological pressure and convey the message that Washington has not abandoned its military options.

However, translating the threat into ground operations requires calculating the costs and consequences that will go beyond attacking a specific target. The risk of casualties, the difficulty of support, the possibility of the war spreading and the lack of guarantee to achieve a stable political result are among the factors that can affect such a decision.