Trump’s Iran Threat: Why Pickaxe Mountain Has Become A Nuclear Flashpoint?

Beneath a mountain of granite, close to one of Iran’s best-known nuclear facilities, lies a network of tunnels whose true purpose remains difficult to establish. Known as Pickaxe Mountain, or Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, the underground complex has become the focus of renewed threats from US President Donald Trump.

But as conservative commentator Tucker Carlson warns that an American nuclear strike could unleash a global catastrophe, a crucial distinction risks getting lost: Trump has threatened to hit the site, but has explicitly ruled out using a nuclear weapon. The debate is therefore about two separate possibilities — a conventional attack on a deeply buried Iranian facility and the far more consequential prospect of a nuclear first strike./

Why Trump Wants To Strike Pickaxe Mountain?

Pickaxe Mountain is located around 2km south of the Natanz nuclear complex, one of Iran’s principal uranium enrichment facilities. Its significance lies not simply in what may be inside, but in what makes it difficult to reach. The facility is believed to be buried deep within a granite mountain, with a network of tunnels and reinforced entrances designed to protect whatever infrastructure lies underground. Unlike Natanz, Fordow and other nuclear-linked facilities that have been hit during US and Israeli military operations, Pickaxe Mountain has so far escaped direct strikes.

The facility's origins date back to 2020, when Ali Akbar Salehi, then head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, announced plans for a modern underground facility near Natanz. Tehran indicated that it would be used for assembling advanced centrifuges — machines that spin uranium gas at high speeds to increase the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope. Uranium enrichment has civilian applications, including producing nuclear reactor fuel, but material enriched to much higher levels can also be used in nuclear weapons. The secrecy surrounding Pickaxe Mountain has since fuelled questions about whether its role has expanded beyond centrifuge assembly.

Those questions gained urgency after reports that Israeli intelligence had told the US that Iran may have moved centrifuges and related components into the mountain complex. Trump referred to the possibility in July, saying Iran “may have” moved centrifuges there, but added that the presence of nuclear material would be a separate matter. He subsequently warned that Washington could hit the site. In an October 15 interview with Newsmax, he said the US might have to “take a shot” at Pickaxe Mountain, adding that it could “knock it out fast”. He also insisted that a nuclear weapon would not be necessary.

The evidence, however, remains incomplete. A September analysis by the CSIS, based on satellite imagery, found increased construction activity around the site, including reinforced tunnel entrances and improvements to internal roads. But the researchers said the imagery could neither confirm nor disprove claims that centrifuges had been transferred there. They also said the construction activity suggested the underground facility might not yet be ready for uranium enrichment. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has sought information and access to the site, but its exact contents and operational status remain unverified.

Why Is Pickaxe Mountain So Difficult To Destroy?

The mountain's geology is central to the military challenge. A conventional strike would have to penetrate layers of rock and reinforced underground infrastructure before reaching the facility. The US possesses the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound bunker-buster designed to attack deeply buried targets. But even this weapon has limits. CSIS estimates that the bomb can penetrate around 60 metres into the ground under suitable conditions, while some open-source assessments have placed parts of Pickaxe Mountain as deep as 80-100 metres. These depth estimates are uncertain, and satellite imagery cannot establish the precise internal layout.

There is also the question of the highly enriched uranium stockpile. The IAEA has previously estimated that Iran possessed around 440kg of uranium enriched to 60 per cent purity, close to the roughly 90 per cent level generally associated with weapons-grade material. There have been unverified claims that some of this stockpile could be stored at Pickaxe Mountain. However, the agency has not confirmed that the material is there. The location of the stockpile and the extent of damage to Iran's nuclear infrastructure remain important uncertainties in assessing the threat.

Tucker Carlson's World War III Warning: How Real Is The Nuclear Threat?

It is against this backdrop that Carlson has raised the prospect of a nuclear escalation. In a post on X on Sunday, the conservative commentator alleged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pressing Trump to authorise a strike on Pickaxe Mountain. Carlson argued that conventional weapons might not be sufficient to penetrate the facility and warned that an American nuclear attack would establish a dangerous precedent for other nuclear-armed countries. He claimed that Russia had told at least two governments that a US nuclear strike on Iran would give Moscow grounds to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

Carlson extended the warning to South Asia, suggesting that India and Pakistan could be tempted to use nuclear weapons against each other, while North Korea might consider an attack on Seoul. He concluded that a first nuclear strike could make a third world war inevitable. These are Carlson's predictions, not established assessments of what governments would do. His claim about private Russian warnings to other governments has also not been independently corroborated in the reporting available.

Russia has, nevertheless, issued nuclear threats during its war against Ukraine. In July 2023, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said Moscow could resort to nuclear weapons if Ukraine's counteroffensive succeeded in taking territory that Russia had claimed to annex. Such statements have heightened international concern about the erosion of the nuclear taboo, although a conditional threat is not the same as an operational decision to launch an attack.

The immediate question, however, remains what Washington intends to do in Iran. Trump has renewed his threats against Tehran, saying at a rally in Iowa on Sunday that the US might eventually have to “give them the hammer”. Yet his October interview with Newsmax included an explicit rejection of nuclear weapons: “I wouldn't use nuclear. We don't have to.” The distinction is vital. A conventional strike on Pickaxe Mountain could intensify an already dangerous conflict; a nuclear attack would cross a threshold with consequences far beyond Iran. Carlson's warning is a prediction of what might follow the latter — not confirmation that Trump has ordered it.