Trump said the war was over but the strikes are escalating? The US Air Force's B-1 bomber is planned to fly deep into Iranian airspace to destroy underground fortresses with "earth-penetrating bombs." Military experts warn that Iran's air defense system still has full operational capabilities, and allowing B-1 bombers to fly so close carries a high risk of being shot down.

According to foreign media reports, recent photos taken at a Royal Air Force base have drawn global attention — the US B-1B "Lancer" strategic bomber is loading heavy precision-guided weapons known as "earth-penetrating bombs." Military analysts generally believe this is a direct preparation by the US military to fly deep into Iranian airspace and strike its deeply buried missile depots and command centers.

However, it is intriguing that while military preparations are proceeding intensively, President Trump has repeatedly publicly stated that the military action against Iran "has basically ended" and "will soon be concluded." This contradictory attitude of "saying peace but preparing for war" hides what kind of strategic calculation? Can this high-risk "earth-penetrating" strike really work? Facing an Iran with significantly improved air defense capabilities, will the US "Lancer" end up in disaster?

From current assessments, Trump's claim that "the war is basically over" mainly serves as a political and public relations tactic rather than a true description of the battlefield situation. Its purposes are threefold: first, to calm domestic growing anti-war sentiments and concerns about economic impact, shaping an image of "controlled situation and victory within reach"; second, to send a "step" to Iran, leaving room for potential, undisclosed contact or negotiations; third, to demonstrate to the international community the US's "flexible control," avoiding panic among allies and severe fluctuations in global markets.

However, military preparations reveal a completely different reality. The US B-1 bombers carrying "earth-penetrating bombs" indicate that the US assesses that previous rounds of air strikes have not achieved core strategic goals, i.e., they have not thoroughly destroyed Iran's retaliation capabilities and war potential.

Overseas media believes that Iran has buried key military assets, including ballistic missiles, drones, command centers, and nuclear R&D facilities, in underground shelters tens to hundreds of meters deep, reinforced with multiple layers. Conventional air strikes and cruise missiles have limited effect on these "underground Great Walls." Therefore, using B-1B platforms capable of carrying heavy "earth-penetrating bombs" for low-altitude bombing has become a choice seen by the US decision-makers as "unavoidable."

The US "earth-penetrating bombs," especially the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), are specifically designed to destroy hardened underground targets, relying on massive weight and kinetic energy to penetrate concrete and rock layers, then exploding inside. Theoretically, they are a powerful weapon against Iran's underground facilities.

But "effective" does not mean "completely paralyzed." The depth of Iran's most important facilities may far exceed public data, and they may use layered, winding designs, possibly equipped with blast-proof doors, decoy passages, etc. Even the most advanced "earth-penetrating bombs" have physical limits on penetration depth (GBU-57 can penetrate about 60 meters), which may not reach the core areas.

Another point is that destroying an underground base often requires precise targeting of critical weak points such as ventilation shafts, power entrances, elevator shafts, or repeated strikes on the same area to achieve "deep digging." This relies on extremely precise and real-time updated intelligence. Iran may have set up numerous fake targets and camouflage facilities.

Even if the bomb successfully penetrates and explodes, it may only destroy a single bunker or passage, making it difficult to completely "disable" the entire maze-like base network within the mountain. Iran's underground military system is distributed and redundant, with recovery and transfer capabilities that should not be underestimated.

Therefore, the US earth-penetrating bomb strikes may cause serious damage and reduce Iran's military counterattack capability, but expecting them to "disarm" Iran in one go is unrealistic.

Similarly, choosing to let the B-1B bomber carry "earth-penetrating bombs" fly over or near the target to drop them greatly increases the risk of being shot down. This is incomparable in safety to launching attacks from outside the enemy's air defense range using cruise missiles.

Although Iran's air defense system is not the best in the world, it is by no means easy to defeat. In terms of long-range, Iran has advanced long-range air defense systems such as the Russian S-300PMU2 and the domestically developed "Bavar-373," which theoretically pose a threat to high-altitude targets. In the medium and short ranges, a large number of "Tor-M1," "S-300" and domestically developed "Hormud" series air defense missiles form a dense medium-low altitude firepower net.

In actual air defense combat experience, Iran has accumulated rich experience in countering drones, cruise missiles, and manned aircraft. Recently, Iran's accurate response to US bases has significantly improved, proving that it now has better target positioning, missile guidance, and penetration capabilities.

The B-1B bomber was designed earlier, and its stealth performance is far inferior to the B-2 or B-21. Once it flies deep into Iranian airspace, it will be exposed to complex air defense radars and infrared detection networks. Although the US will inevitably organize a strong escort formation (including F-22, F-35 stealth fighters), electronic warfare aircraft (such as EA-18G "Growler"), and air defense suppression forces for support, the risks are still very high within Iran's territory. Any loss of a B-1B would not only be a huge material loss of hundreds of millions of dollars and casualties among the crew, but also a significant blow to American prestige, possibly completely changing the nature of the war and domestic public opinion.

The Trump administration is really in a difficult position now, wanting to achieve a decisive victory but fearing getting stuck in another "forever war." Using the B-1B for earth-penetrating strikes is a high-risk gamble in military terms, which could push the war into an even more uncontrollable escalation spiral. In other words, the US display of "earth-penetrating fangs" may gain temporary deterrence, but it is more likely to provoke a stronger and broader asymmetric retaliation from Iran. Ultimately, this conflict that began with miscalculation is sliding along the dangerous track of "escalation - retaliation - further escalation," and the politician who declared "the war is over" may be opening a Pandora's box that is even more difficult to handle.

Original: toutiao.com/article/1859451761674240/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author.