Donald Trump assures that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against Iran and rules out, at this stage, sending ground troops. Yet, according to CNN, the Pentagon is studying new strikes that could mobilize the “mother of all bombs.”
Tehran promises retaliation against adversary infrastructure, while Americans are already paying a high human, budgetary and economic price.
The Essentials
• Washington is examining new military options, but no decision to use the GBU-43/B has been announced.
• The Pentagon puts the cost of the war at $43.6 billion as of September 3.
• U.S. diesel fuel was $6.179 per gallon on October 12, i.e., $2.514 higher than a year earlier.
• U.S. inflation reached 3.7% in September year over year.
• American officials report tensions in anti-missile stocks; the Pentagon denies a shortage.
Trump Rejects Nuclear, but Leaves Open the Option for New Strikes
Asked on Newsmax on Thursday, October 15, Donald Trump stated that he would not use the nuclear weapon against Iran. He explained that the “Mother of All Bombs” was not nuclear, while presenting it as an extremely powerful conventional weapon. He also indicated that he did not envisage a ground operation by U.S. forces in Iran.
The American president says that Tehran has asked for a halt to the attacks and that negotiations are continuing. He also mentioned the possibility of new strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, notably the presumed underground site called “Pickaxe Mountain.” These statements do not constitute a diplomatic agreement confirmed by both parties, nor an operational decision to strike.
Trump also said he was discussing nuclear disarmament with Russia and China, as the major nuclear powers remain confronted by the absence of a new framework equivalent to the expired New START treaty.
The “Mother of All Bombs”: What Are the Real Effects?
According to a CNN investigation, confirmed as information reported by Reuters but not independently verified by Reuters, the U.S. military has developed scenarios envisioning the possible use of the GBU-43/B MOAB against energy infrastructure and Iranian nuclear targets. The White House has not confirmed the existence of an order to employ it; a Pentagon spokesperson has only said that the armed forces are planning different scenarios.
GBU-43/B: Established Characteristics
Type: conventional GPS-guided bomb, with blast effect.
Mass: about 21,600 pounds, or 9.8 tons.
Warhead: about 18,700 pounds, or 8.5 tons.
First combat use: April 2017, against Islamic State positions in Afghanistan.
Developed in the early 2000s, this weapon is designed to produce a massive blast near the surface. Its impact in a populated area would raise major risks for civilians. However, presenting as established a destructive power at 60 meters underground would be misleading: the MOAB is not a penetrating bomb designed to bore through thick layers of rock. Military sources cited by CNN doubt its effectiveness against deeply buried nuclear facilities.
Its potential use would therefore have military and psychological reach, without guaranteeing the destruction of all targeted objectives. No uniform destruction radius can be asserted independently of the terrain, the target, and the protections in place.
Iran Warns It Will Strike Adversary Infrastructure
The Iranian military command warns that any attack on its infrastructure would, in its words, cause “multiplied” damage to the enemy’s infrastructure and interests. The Guards’ command states it is ready to respond to any new operation, on land, at sea and in the air.
Iranian military officials present the Strait of Hormuz as an area under their supervision and say that unauthorized passage will not be tolerated. According to information reported by Al Jazeera, they have warned ships against turning off their tracking systems and about unauthorized crossings. These are Tehran’s positions and warnings, and not an acknowledgment of its right to unilaterally control all international navigation.
The risk is not limited to statements: a Reuters investigation published on October 15 counts at least 135 drone and missile strikes against 84 infrastructure sites in several Gulf countries since the start of the conflict, attributed to Iran or forces allied to it. Energy facilities, airports and logistics networks are among the affected targets.
In the United States, the War Repercuts at the Pump
The latest available weekly report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), covering October 12, 2026, places the average price of regular gasoline at $4.331 per gallon nationwide, up from $3.061 a year earlier. The gap stands at $1.270, about 41.5% on this weekly measure.
Road diesel is even more expensive: $6.179 per gallon, versus $3.665 a year earlier, i.e. +$2.514 (+68.6%). By way of illustration, a 15-gallon fill-up of gasoline costs $19.05 more than with the October 2025 average price for the same quantity.
This rise directly affects motorists, but also road transport, agriculture and distribution. Diesel prices can ripple through logistics costs and, gradually, into the prices of goods delivered to consumers. It would be mistaken to attribute all fuel price increases to a single military operation: oil supply, refining, transport capacity, and market expectations also play roles.
Inflation: 3.7% in September, Energy at the Forefront
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Consumer Price Index rose 3.7% year over year in September 2026, up from 3.4% in August. For September alone, it rose by 0.6% after seasonal adjustment.
The Main Official September Figures
Overall inflation: +3.7% over twelve months.
Energy: +20.4% over twelve months.
Gasoline: +34.2% over twelve months and +9.1% in September (seasonally adjusted).
Home heating oil: +74.2% over twelve months.
Prices excluding food and energy: +2.6% over twelve months.
Gasoline contributed to more than half of the monthly increase in the overall index, according to the BLS. Wholesale inflation also accelerated: the Producer Price Index was up +6.3% year over year in September, according to figures from the Labor Department reported by the Associated Press.
The rise in energy and transportation costs thus creates a risk of spreading to other spending categories.
$43.6 Billion in Military Spending and a Heavy Human Toll
According to a tally from the U.S. military command submitted to Congress, the cost of the war had already reached $43.6 billion as of September 3, 2026. This amount includes operating expenditures and assessments aimed at replacing munitions and equipment expended or damaged. It does not represent the final cost of the conflict as of October 16.
The Pentagon has also raised the number of American service members killed in Iran-related operations to 21, according to a revised tally reported October 10 by the Washington Post. The same tally notes 865 wounded. These figures should not be confused with all military deaths in the Middle East for other reasons during the same period.
Patriot and THAAD: A Warning Through 2030, Challenged by the Pentagon
An investigation by CBS News, published on October 15, reveals that in December 2025 General Randy George, then Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, warned about a concerning level of Patriot and THAAD interceptors stocks. According to officials cited by the network, replenishing stocks could require several years, up to 2030, even without a renewed large deployment.
CBS also cites an estimate from the CSIS research center: the United States would have had about 355 THAAD interceptors before the war, and would have used between 190 and 290. This range equates to roughly 54% to 82% of the initial stock; it should not be treated as a comprehensive official inventory.
The Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell rejected claims of shortages and asserted that the U.S. forces have the means needed for their missions. This contradiction between internally reported assessments and the official stance remains a central issue: increasing strikes could strain systems also used to defend allies and partners.
Sanctions on Iran and a Search for an Exit to the Diesel Crisis
On October 15, the U.S. Treasury Department announced sanctions targeting 16 individuals and 10 entities linked to Iran. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says he aims to increase economic pressure on Tehran and its support networks.
Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that Washington is studying loosening certain restrictions affecting tankers belonging to the “ghost fleets,” to facilitate the transport of hydrocarbons and ease diesel price pressures. This is a policy option under consideration, not a broad lifting of sanctions.
Traders and analysts interviewed by Reuters nevertheless estimate that the effect could be limited, many of these ships lack the insurance, certifications or operating conditions required for conventional commerce.
As November Elections Approach, Measurable Political Pressure
With less than three weeks to go before the November 3 midterm elections, rising living costs have become a major issue for the administration. An AP-NORC poll published on October 1 shows that only 17% of American adults approve of Trump’s handling of the cost of living, compared with 26% for his overall economic policy. In the same poll, 71% disapprove of his handling of the Iran dossier.
These indicators describe opinion at the time of the poll; they do not allow predicting the election outcome. They do, however, highlight the difficulty for the White House in combining military pressure, seeking an agreement and controlling fuel prices.
Why the Strait of Hormuz Remains Determinant
Tensions around Hormuz affect oil flows, maritime insurance, and the availability of ships. According to the Financial Times, 24 ships were attacked in the two weeks before October 11. The newspaper reported tanker movements limited to 2.9 million barrels per day on October 11, versus a peak of 15.5 million barrels per day in September. These values refer to distinct dates and do not describe a comparable average over two months.
For the United States, this blockage helps sustain uncertainty in energy markets. For importing countries like Tunisia, the risk lies in the costs of hydrocarbons, freight, and potentially budget balances, with no Tunisian-specific quantified effect to isolate at this stage.
In summary: the declared exclusion of a nuclear strike does not mean the end of the escalation risk. Between threats against infrastructure, preparation for conventional strikes and pressure on supplies, the conflict is already weighing costs on households and American finances, even as the diplomatic outcome remains uncertain.
