'Mother of All Bombs': New Keyword in US Psychological Warfare Against Iran?

The possibility of the United States using the 'Mother of All Bombs' against Iran can be examined within the framework of efforts to demonstrate strength, create psychological pressure, and influence Tehran's calculations.

According to Ambassador Arjan's international reporter, the publication of reports about the US military's possible plans to use the bomb known as the "mother of all bombs" against Iran's energy infrastructure and nuclear facilities has once again brought the issue of psychological warfare and Washington's media operations against Tehran into focus.

CNN has quoted several American officials as claiming that the country's army has formulated new offensive plans that include the possible use of the GBU-43/B bomb; According to this report, if Donald Trump issues an order to resume military operations against Iran, plans may be considered before or after the US mid-term elections.

However, it should be noted that the published report does not mean Washington's definitive decision to use this weapon. Reuters also said it could not independently verify the CNN report.

"Mother of all bombs"; Beyond a weapon, a media keyword

In a situation where the image of American military power in the region is faced with questions and challenges, highlighting the name of a huge bomb can have a function beyond the introduction of a weapon.

"Mother of all bombs" is a title that conveys an image of the power of widespread destruction to the audience's mind even before examining the technical details; A title that has the capacity to become a keyword in psychological warfare and media operations.

Based on this, it is possible to examine this issue from three angles: first, a possible attempt to create fear in the public opinion of Iran; Second, sending a threatening message with the aim of influencing Tehran's political and negotiation calculations; And third, preparing the media environment to present a possible military action as a major victory for the Trump administration.

Of course, this does not mean proving the definite intention of the American government; But in the atmosphere of political and military confrontation between the two countries, the propaganda and psychological function of highlighting such a weapon cannot be ignored.

From the grandeur of ships and fighters to a bomb with the ambitious name

In military conflicts, the display of power is not limited to moving equipment and deploying troops. Sometimes a name, image or media threat also becomes a tool for inducing superiority. In such a framework, the emphasis on a weapon called the "mother of all bombs" could be an attempt to convey the message that Washington still has a wide range of destructive options to exert pressure.

However, there is a fundamental difference between demonstrating power and proving the ability to achieve military objectives. Having a powerful weapon by itself does not mean the possibility of using it effectively on every battlefield or guaranteeing the realization of strategic goals.

If the purpose of highlighting this bomb is to rebuild the image of American deterrence and to induce Iran's vulnerability, the main question is to what extent such a message is compatible with the technical, operational and strategic realities of a possible war.

Is the "mother of all bombs" supposed to affect Iran's negotiation calculations?

One of the possible functions of projecting military threats in the media space is to influence the other side's calculations in the field of diplomacy. In this context, highlighting a weapon with high explosive power can be seen as part of an effort to increase the perceived cost of resisting Washington's demands.

The implicit message of such space-building is clear: if no agreement is reached or disagreements persist, the military option remains on the table and may be followed by more powerful instruments.

Of course, it should be noted that Tehran's calculations are not based only on the name of a weapon or the amount of explosives; Rather, it includes a set of security, technical, political considerations and possible costs of any conflict.

A bomb weighing more than 9 tons; But can it destroy underground facilities?

The GBU-43/B, also known as the MOAB, is one of the US military's largest non-nuclear conventional bombs. This weapon weighs about 9.5 tons and was used for the first time in April 2017 against the positions of ISIS in Khorasan in Afghanistan.

Despite its considerable explosive power, this bomb should not be equated with nuclear weapons or specialized munitions designed to penetrate deep into the earth. An important part of its destructive effect is obtained from the pressure wave caused by the explosion, and its effectiveness depends on the characteristics of the target, environmental conditions and the level of protection of the structures.

Iran's nuclear knowledge cannot be summed up in the weight of a bomb

Even if it is assumed that a part of Iran's physical infrastructure will be damaged in a possible attack, it cannot be automatically concluded that the country's knowledge and scientific power will also be destroyed.

Nuclear infrastructure is not just a collection of buildings, equipment and facilities; Specialized knowledge, trained manpower, accumulated experience, technical chains and the ability to rebuild are also considered part of its strategic capacity. Therefore, assessing the consequences of a possible attack must distinguish between physical damage to facilities and the complete removal of knowledge and scientific capability.

For this reason, the claim of complete destruction of Iran's nuclear power, based solely on the possible use of a conventional bomb, is a claim far beyond what the characteristics of this weapon alone prove.

At the same time, we should not ignore the fact that an attack on critical infrastructure can cause serious human, economic and technical losses. Emphasizing the limitations of a weapon does not mean denying the risk of an attack or downplaying its consequences; Rather, it means separating technical reality from advertising hype.

Trump and the need for a symbolic victory?

Another aspect of the story should be sought in the field of American domestic politics. If the Trump administration decides to resume military operations against Iran in the future, the manner in which the results of those operations are narrated in the American political and media environment will be of significant importance.

In such a scenario, using a weapon with a high-sounding name and high explosive power can help create a media image of power and victory. There is also a possibility that the US government, in case of an attack, will once again claim to inflict a decisive blow on Iran's nuclear power; A claim whose veracity must be judged on the basis of independent evidence and actual assessment of damages, not merely on the basis of post-operational political statements.

In the meantime, a difference should be made between "declaring victory" and "achieving military and strategic objectives". A government may advertise an operation as successful, but this narrative does not necessarily mean that it achieved all of its stated objectives or eliminated the adversary's capabilities.

The consequences of a calculation error

What matters in assessing military threats is not simply the weight of a bomb, nor the title the media chooses for it. The main issue is the set of consequences that any possible attack can have; From human and infrastructural damages to counter-reaction, expanding the scope of the conflict and increasing political and security costs for the involved parties.

The possibility of using the "mother of all bombs" can be examined in the context of trying to show power, create psychological pressure, and influence the other party's calculations. But the destructive power of a weapon is not a guarantee of strategic success, and the announcement of a media victory cannot replace an independent assessment of the actual results of the operation.

For Iran, the basic issue is not simply comparing the weight and explosive power of weapons; Rather, it is to maintain scientific and strategic capacities, reduce the vulnerability of infrastructures, and have a reliable deterrent against military threats.