By : Shatha Kalel
The latest threat by U.S. President Donald Trump to strike Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain complex, buried deep underground near the Natanz nuclear facility, should not be viewed as simply another warning in a long and increasingly complex confrontation. Rather, it may represent a crucial test of the central assumption underlying Washington’s strategy toward Iran: Can sustained military and economic pressure prevent Tehran from rebuilding its nuclear capabilities without drawing the United States into a broader and more dangerous regional war?
On September 4, Trump said the United States could strike Pickaxe Mountain “very soon.” The site is located near the heavily damaged Natanz uranium-enrichment complex and contains two tunnel systems buried deep underground.
But the immediate question is not simply: Will Washington carry out the strike?
The more important question is: What could such a strike actually achieve?
Why Does Pickaxe Mountain Matter?
Pickaxe Mountain, also known as Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, is located approximately two kilometres from the Natanz nuclear complex.
Work on the site began around 2020, following acts of sabotage that damaged a centrifuge facility at Natanz. Iranian officials later spoke of constructing a larger and more advanced facility inside the mountain.
The site’s significance lies primarily in its depth and fortification.
Analyses of satellite imagery suggest that parts of the complex may lie between 80 and 100 metres below ground. This raises questions about whether even the most powerful conventional U.S. bunker-busting weapons could completely destroy the facility.
The central problem, however, is the considerable uncertainty surrounding what actually exists inside these tunnels.
Iran says there are no nuclear activities at Pickaxe Mountain. The International Atomic Energy Agency has not been able to access the complex, while outside assessments suggest that it could potentially be used for centrifuge production or activities associated with uranium enrichment.
This is where uncertainty itself becomes a dangerous strategic factor.
If Washington believes that Iran is transferring important parts of its nuclear infrastructure into facilities that are increasingly difficult to monitor or destroy, the incentive for a preventive strike may grow.
At the same time, the less confirmed intelligence there is about what lies inside the mountain, the greater the danger of making military decisions based on incomplete assumptions.
The Paradox of U.S. Strategy
Trump’s description of the conflict as “small potatoes”—something relatively minor or limited for the United States—appears intended to distinguish the current operations from the major U.S. ground wars of previous decades.
Yet this reveals a clear strategic paradox.
The United States wants to demonstrate that Iran cannot escalate without paying a price.
At the same time, Washington does not appear to want to occupy Iran or become involved in another prolonged ground war in the Middle East.
The United States is therefore attempting to achieve major political objectives through calibrated and limited military force: degrading Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities, imposing economic costs on Tehran, protecting maritime navigation, deterring Iranian retaliation, and ultimately pushing Iran toward a political settlement.
But Washington wants to achieve all of this without losing control of escalation.
That is an extremely difficult balance to maintain.
Pickaxe Mountain, therefore, is not merely another potential military target. It also represents the limits of the U.S. strategy itself.
Destroying Facilities Does Not Mean Destroying Knowledge
Even if the United States succeeds in inflicting serious damage on Pickaxe Mountain, military power faces a fundamental limitation.
A nuclear program does not consist only of buildings, centrifuges, laboratories, electrical systems, and underground facilities.
An advanced nuclear program also consists of scientific knowledge, expertise, engineers, trained personnel, technical know-how, and institutional experience accumulated over many years.
A building can be destroyed within hours.
Knowledge cannot be destroyed in the same way.
Repeated military strikes may therefore succeed in delaying Iran’s nuclear program without necessarily eliminating Iran’s ability to rebuild it.
This could produce a dangerous strategic cycle:
Iran rebuilds → facilities are moved deeper underground → intelligence monitoring becomes more difficult → the United States or Israel strikes → Iran disperses its capabilities to more secret locations → another strike becomes necessary.
Under such circumstances, the United States could achieve tactical military victories while remaining trapped in a long-term strategic stalemate.
Pickaxe Mountain itself may illustrate this phenomenon. The underground facility was developed after earlier Natanz facilities faced sabotage and threats.
Military pressure, in other words, does not always produce destruction alone.
Sometimes it also produces adaptation, technological development, and greater fortification.
Iran’s Calculations
Tehran faces its own difficult dilemma.
A major retreat in the face of U.S. pressure could damage the Iranian government’s domestic credibility and weaken its regional deterrence.
Continuing the confrontation, however, imposes growing military, economic, and human costs.
Iran therefore has an interest in avoiding outright defeat, while also avoiding giving Washington an easy justification for overwhelming military escalation.
This is where deeply buried facilities become important.
They provide Iran with what might be called strategic resilience.
Yet this strategy also creates a dangerous paradox.
The more Iran fortifies and conceals its facilities underground, the more Washington may believe Tehran is attempting to preserve nuclear capabilities beyond the reach of conventional military action.
Consequently, an action Iran regards as defensive may be interpreted by the United States as a reason to launch a preventive strike before the facility becomes even more difficult to target.
The Strait of Hormuz Changes the Equation
The nuclear issue cannot be separated from the broader confrontation in the Gulf.
The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most strategically important energy corridors. Any escalation between Iran and the United States could therefore rapidly affect countries that are not direct participants in the conflict.
For Tehran, Hormuz represents an important source of leverage because Iran cannot match U.S. conventional military superiority.
For Washington, however, allowing Iran to acquire decisive leverage over shipping through the strait could damage American credibility and threaten Gulf security.
This creates another escalation cycle.
Iran needs asymmetric tools to compensate for U.S. military superiority, while Washington views Iran’s use of those tools as justification for additional military pressure.
It consequently becomes difficult for either side to retreat without appearing to make a concession to the other.
Why Is Trump Threatening Pickaxe Mountain Now?
Trump’s threat can be interpreted in three principal ways.
First: coercive diplomacy.
By publicly raising the possibility of attacking a heavily fortified facility, Washington is sending Tehran a message that even installations buried deep inside mountains are not necessarily safe.
Second: pressure in negotiations.
The message is straightforward: rejecting a settlement could result in attacks on facilities that Iran has spent years and significant resources protecting.
Third: the possibility of genuine preparations for a strike.
These interpretations are not mutually exclusive. A military threat is most effective as a diplomatic instrument when the other side believes there is a genuine possibility that it will be carried out.
What Happens If Pickaxe Mountain Is Struck?
Several scenarios are possible.
Scenario One: Military success followed by negotiations.
The United States succeeds in significantly damaging the facility, Iran chooses a limited response, and the parties subsequently return to negotiations.
Trump could then argue that military pressure successfully strengthened deterrence.
Scenario Two: A calculated Iranian response.
Iran could retaliate against U.S. or regional military interests, but on a limited scale designed to prevent the confrontation from developing into an all-out war.
The conflict would continue, but both sides would attempt to keep escalation below a certain threshold.
Scenario Three: Mutual escalation.
A U.S. strike triggers a broader Iranian response, followed by another American attack, beginning a cycle of strikes and counterstrikes that could move beyond what either side originally intended.
This is the most dangerous scenario.
But there is a fourth possibility that may be even more complex:
Military Success, Strategic Failure
The facility could be damaged while Iran retains enough scientific and technical expertise to rebuild its capabilities elsewhere.
Tehran might then conclude that the only way to protect its program in the future is to construct facilities that are deeper, more dispersed, and more secretive.
Under those circumstances, the international community’s ability to monitor Iran’s nuclear program could become weaker rather than stronger.
In other words, the United States could win the battle over one mountain while making the long-term nuclear challenge more difficult to resolve.
The Bigger Strategic Question
The issue is no longer simply whether the United States possesses the military capability to destroy another Iranian facility.
America’s military superiority over Iran is clear.
The real question is:
Can the United States transform that military superiority into a sustainable political settlement?
Military power can destroy facilities, but it does not necessarily change the political calculations of states.
Iran, meanwhile, may be able to continue resisting and absorb a degree of damage, but doing so carries mounting economic, military, and human costs.
This creates the possibility that both sides remain trapped in a dangerous middle ground:
No peace, but no all-out war.
No Iranian capitulation, but no decisive U.S. withdrawal.
No final settlement, but no clear end to the confrontation.
Such a situation could ultimately prove more dangerous than either side anticipates.
Conclusion
Pickaxe Mountain has become a symbol of a strategic struggle far larger than a single underground facility.
For Iran, the mountain represents survival, fortification, and the ability to preserve sensitive capabilities beyond the immediate reach of military strikes.
For the United States, it represents a different problem: the possibility that military successes above ground could simply push Iran’s most important capabilities deeper and further out of sight.
A U.S. strike could delay Iran’s nuclear program and demonstrate Washington’s ability to reach highly fortified targets.
But a strike alone cannot resolve the fundamental political questions surrounding the future of Iran’s nuclear program, regional security, and relations between Tehran and Washington.
The most important question, therefore, is not:
Can the United States strike Pickaxe Mountain?
It is: What happens the day after the strike?
Without a diplomatic framework capable of transforming military pressure into an enforceable and verifiable political agreement, Pickaxe Mountain may not mark the end of the nuclear confrontation with Iran.
Instead, it could mark the beginning of a new phase—one in which nuclear facilities move deeper underground, military operations become increasingly difficult, international monitoring becomes weaker, and the distance between limited conflict and a wider regional war becomes shorter than ever before.
Economic Unit – North America Office
Al-Rawabit Center for Research and Strategic Studies