JERUSALEM, November 1, 2026: The United States and Israel have reportedly developed plans for another military confrontation with Iran, but Tehran's deeply buried nuclear facilities, dispersed missile forces and ability to retaliate across the Middle East could make a new campaign more complicated than previous operations.
According to an analysis published by The Jerusalem Post, American and Israeli military planners have drawn on lessons from earlier confrontations to prepare for the possibility of renewed strikes against Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure.
While the two countries are believed to possess overwhelming advantages in air power, questions remain about whether another bombing campaign could permanently eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities or prevent retaliatory attacks against Israel and American interests.
Particular attention has focused on Pickaxe Mountain, a heavily fortified underground complex near Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, which analysts believe could become an important location for sensitive nuclear activities.
The prospect of another conflict comes amid renewed tensions between Washington and Tehran and growing concerns among regional governments about the consequences of further military escalation.
Israeli Aircraft Reportedly Conduct Rehearsal Missions
Foreign reports cited by The Jerusalem Post indicate that Israeli fighter aircraft have conducted flights through Syrian and Iraqi airspace towards Iran's border as part of preparations for possible future operations.
The reported exercises are believed to reflect tactics used during earlier Israeli and American attacks against Iranian military infrastructure.
In previous confrontations, Israeli F-35 stealth fighters were reportedly employed to penetrate Iranian air defences and target radar installations, creating opportunities for other aircraft to conduct subsequent strikes.
F-15 and F-16 fighter jets were then used in larger bombing operations against selected targets.
During the first wave of attacks in February 2026, more than 200 Israeli fighter aircraft reportedly participated in operations against Iran.
The United States and Israel also divided operational responsibilities geographically, according to the analysis.
Israeli aircraft concentrated primarily on targets in western Iran and around Tehran, while American forces focused on southern Iran and certain locations in the capital region.
A similar division of responsibilities could feature in any renewed campaign, although no new operation has been officially confirmed.
Air Superiority May Not Guarantee Military Success
Military analysts believe the United States and Israel would seek to establish control of Iranian airspace during the initial stages of a new conflict.
Disabling radar systems and air-defence installations would allow aircraft to operate with fewer restrictions and enable surveillance and attack drones to remain over selected areas for extended periods.
Drones offer advantages in monitoring targets and responding to developments on the ground, although they are generally more vulnerable to air-defence systems than advanced fighter aircraft.
However, control of the skies would not necessarily prevent Iran from launching missiles, deploying drones or attacking American and allied interests elsewhere in the region.
Previous confrontations demonstrated that Iranian forces could continue retaliatory operations even after suffering significant damage to conventional military infrastructure.
Consequently, the effectiveness of a renewed campaign would depend not only on the number of targets destroyed but also on whether Iran's remaining capabilities could be neutralized for a sustained period.
Pickaxe Mountain Emerges as Major Nuclear Concern
One of the most difficult potential targets is the underground complex known as Pickaxe Mountain, located near Natanz.
The facility has attracted attention because of its depth and the possibility that it could eventually be used to house sensitive nuclear equipment and materials.
Sources cited by The Jerusalem Post indicated that the complex was not yet operational at the time of the report.
Nevertheless, analysts are concerned that Iran could potentially transfer enriched uranium and centrifuges into the underground installation if it becomes functional.
Such a development could complicate international monitoring and make it considerably harder to disrupt nuclear activities through conventional airstrikes.
President Donald Trump has reportedly expressed particular concern about the site, while Israeli officials have urged Washington to consider its strategic implications.
Iran has also reacted strongly to statements concerning the facility, reflecting its perceived importance.
The central military question is whether the complex lies beyond the effective reach of existing American and Israeli weapons.
Underground Depth Complicates Potential Strikes
The United States previously employed its Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a roughly 30,000-pound bunker-busting weapon, against Iran's Fordow nuclear facility.
According to the report, American forces used 12 such bombs during that operation.
Fordow was constructed beneath a mountain, making it particularly difficult to attack with conventional weapons.
The much deeper Pickaxe Mountain complex presents an even greater challenge, with some defence analysts questioning whether existing bunker-busting bombs could reliably destroy its most protected sections.
The uncertainty has generated debate over whether aerial attacks could prevent the facility from becoming operational or merely delay its development.
Experts have also examined whether damage to supporting infrastructure could disrupt the complex without directly penetrating its deepest underground areas.
However, the effectiveness of any such approach remains uncertain, particularly because the full internal configuration of the facility is not publicly known.
Satellite Research Highlights Facility's Complexity
A recent assessment by the Institute for Science and International Security has drawn attention to the scale and configuration of the Pickaxe Mountain installation.
The study, based on satellite imagery, identifies multiple surface features associated with the underground complex, including tunnel entrances and possible ventilation infrastructure.
The findings suggest that the installation consists of an extensive network rather than a single underground structure.
This complexity could make it difficult to assess the consequences of an aerial attack or determine whether important equipment and materials had been destroyed.
Satellite observations may provide information about visible construction activity and supporting infrastructure, but they cannot establish with certainty what equipment is located deep inside the mountain.
The facility therefore presents both an intelligence challenge and a military problem for Washington and Jerusalem.
Even a successful attack against visible infrastructure might not conclusively establish whether sensitive nuclear capabilities had been eliminated.
Iran's Underground Missile Bases Present Separate Challenge
Beyond nuclear facilities, Iran's extensive network of underground missile installations could prove difficult to neutralize.
During earlier operations, American and Israeli strikes reportedly damaged entrances to underground missile bases and temporarily restricted access.
However, Iranian engineering teams were sometimes able to restore access within days, and in certain cases much sooner.
The rapid repairs limited the long-term effectiveness of some attacks.
Iran also reportedly modified its missile deployment strategy between the June 2025 conflict and the fighting in early 2026.
Rather than concentrating large missile launches at a limited number of locations, Iranian forces increasingly dispersed launch teams across different parts of the country.
Smaller and more frequent missile attacks created additional difficulties for Israeli air defences and disrupted civilian activities over extended periods.
This approach reduced Iran's dependence on a small number of fixed launch locations and complicated efforts to identify and eliminate missile units.
The experience has raised questions about whether Israel and the United States have developed more effective ways to counter dispersed launch systems and underground missile infrastructure.
Iranian Retaliation Could Extend Across the Gulf
The potential consequences of another confrontation would extend well beyond Iran and Israel.
During previous hostilities, Iranian attacks reportedly caused extensive damage to American military installations in several regional countries.
The analysis cited estimated losses of at least $5 billion at US facilities during the early 2026 conflict.
Iran has also threatened to target American naval assets, energy infrastructure and other strategic interests in the event of renewed military action.
The Strait of Hormuz remains a particular concern because of its importance to international oil and gas shipments.
Any disruption to maritime traffic through the waterway could affect energy markets and international trade.
Threats involving undersea communications infrastructure and regional energy facilities have further increased concerns about the wider economic consequences of another war.
Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries have also faced attacks linked to regional conflicts, including operations attributed to Yemen's Houthi movement.
These developments demonstrate that even a geographically limited military campaign could produce consequences across several countries.
Short Military Campaign May Face Difficulties
Another major uncertainty concerns the possible duration of a renewed operation.
Trump has reportedly favoured a brief and decisive military campaign, with discussions referring to an operation lasting approximately three days.
However, analysts question whether such a limited period would be sufficient to achieve lasting strategic objectives.
Iran retains multiple capabilities that could survive initial strikes, including dispersed missile systems, drones and equipment protected by underground facilities.
Tehran could also respond through attacks on regional military installations, maritime traffic or energy infrastructure.
Such retaliation could prolong hostilities beyond the timetable preferred by Washington.
Some Israeli security figures believe a sustained campaign might be necessary to produce meaningful changes in Iran's military capabilities or negotiating position.
Others question whether additional airstrikes would substantially alter Tehran's strategic calculations.
The disagreement reflects the distinction between inflicting military damage and achieving a lasting political or security outcome.
Ground Operations Remain a Controversial Possibility
The limitations of aerial bombardment have also prompted discussion about whether certain underground nuclear materials could be secured or destroyed without ground intervention.
Former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant has suggested that airstrikes alone may not be sufficient to neutralize some highly enriched uranium believed to be buried deep underground.
His assessment reflects broader concerns about the difficulty of verifying the destruction of sensitive nuclear material following an attack.
However, ground operations inside Iran would introduce substantial additional risks, including logistical difficulties, potential casualties and the possibility of a prolonged conflict.
There is no confirmed indication that Washington or Jerusalem has approved such an operation.
The debate nevertheless highlights the challenges of addressing nuclear infrastructure designed to withstand conventional military attacks.
Energy Infrastructure and Regime Change Remain Unresolved Questions
Another issue facing military planners is whether future strikes would extend to Iran's major energy facilities.
Some Israeli intelligence and security figures have previously argued that pressure on economically important infrastructure could weaken Tehran's ability to sustain military operations.
Others have warned that attacks on civilian-linked economic assets could produce the opposite political effect by encouraging domestic support for the Iranian government.
Such operations could also trigger wider regional instability and further disrupt international energy supplies.
The question of whether military pressure could produce political change in Iran remains highly uncertain.
According to the analysis, Trump and some of his advisers have become less convinced that regime change is a realistic near-term objective.
Differences between American and Israeli expectations could therefore become significant if a renewed conflict lasts longer than Washington initially anticipates.
Uncertain Outcome Despite Military Advantages
The United States and Israel possess advanced aircraft, intelligence capabilities and precision-guided weapons that could inflict considerable damage on Iranian military infrastructure.
However, Iran's underground nuclear installations, mobile missile forces and capacity for regional retaliation could limit the strategic effectiveness of another military campaign.
Pickaxe Mountain illustrates the difficulty of eliminating heavily protected nuclear infrastructure through air power alone.
Iran's dispersed missile operations present a separate challenge, particularly if launch units can continue attacks after major installations are damaged.
Questions also remain about the ability of Israeli and American air-defence systems to withstand prolonged missile and drone attacks.
Ultimately, the success of any renewed military operation would depend on whether it achieved lasting security objectives rather than simply destroying additional targets.
For Israel, the central concern is whether another confrontation could significantly reduce Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile threats.
For Washington, the challenge would be to balance military objectives against the risks of prolonged fighting and wider regional instability.
Although preparations for a possible conflict have reportedly advanced, the timing, scale and eventual outcome of any new operation remain uncertain.