Mount Kolang: A Second Fordow or Trump’s Exit Ramp from War?
WANA (Jul 22) – Two days before Donald Trump publicly mentioned Mount Kolang for the first time, the underground site had already become a recurring subject in Western media reports, satellite imagery, and security analyses. The sequence raises an important question: Is Washington preparing public opinion for a military strike, or is it already constructing the narrative of one?
The question matters because Trump’s own remarks revealed a notable contradiction. He said Washington had “no verified intelligence” indicating that Iran had transferred its centrifuges to Mount Kolang, yet in the same breath insisted the facility would be struck “soon and very hard.” In military practice, publicly announcing the timing and target of an operation before it takes place is highly unusual—unless the objective extends beyond the operation itself.
Three Narratives, One Target
At least three competing explanations have emerged to account for the sudden prominence of Mount Kolang.
The first argues that the United States is genuinely seeking to eliminate what it sees as one of the last critical components of Iran’s nuclear program. In recent weeks, Western media have published satellite imagery and reports emphasizing the site’s fortification, portraying it as one of the U.S. military’s most significant potential targets. From this perspective, striking Mount Kolang would simply continue the strategy previously applied to other Iranian nuclear facilities.
A billboard featuring U.S. President Donald Trump laid in a coffin on a building in Tehran, Iran, July 15, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
The second narrative, however, has gained increasing attention because it is fundamentally more political than military. Even if such an attack were carried out, it could hardly be viewed as ending the conflict. The central issues now extend well beyond Iran’s nuclear program, encompassing the security of the Strait of Hormuz and broader regional dynamics. In this view, a strike on Mount Kolang might conclude one phase of the confrontation, but it would not necessarily resolve the crisis itself.
This leads to a more fundamental question: Does Trump need a military victory, or a political one?
In recent weeks, the U.S. president has repeatedly insisted that operations against Iran are “not over,” while also claiming that even if the United States withdrew from the region today, rebuilding Iran’s capabilities would take 20 to 25 years. Such rhetoric sounds less like that of a battlefield commander than of a president seeking to explain to the American public why the conflict continues—and to ensure that if he eventually chooses to end it, he can present that decision as a success.
Within that framework, Mount Kolang could serve the same purpose that certain symbolic operations have served in previous wars: a high-profile military action that creates the conditions for declaring “mission accomplished,” even if the underlying strategic balance has changed very little.
Is Mount Kolang a Decoy?
A third scenario is even more complex.
Over recent months, Western media have steadily elevated Mount Kolang’s profile, and Trump has now translated that media narrative into political messaging. Such an intense focus may represent more than preparation for an attack—it could itself be part of a deception campaign.
History offers many examples of military operations in which the true objective lay somewhere other than where public attention had been deliberately directed. For that reason, some analysts suggest that the emphasis on Mount Kolang could be intended to divert attention from other possibilities, including special operations, limited strikes elsewhere, or intelligence activities.
This possibility cannot be confirmed or dismissed outright. One point, however, is clear: when the President of the United States publicly discusses a military operation before it occurs, he is no longer speaking only about a military target. He is also shaping how that operation will be perceived by domestic audiences, allies, and adversaries alike.
A billboard depicting U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a building in Tehran, Iran, July 21, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
Tehran’s Response: Beyond Military Retaliation?
Meanwhile, developments within Iran suggest that any potential strike on Mount Kolang would not be viewed merely as a military issue.
Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, argued that a U.S. attack could provide “compelling grounds for changing Iran’s nuclear doctrine.” Other Iranian commentators have also raised the possibility of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or increasing uranium enrichment.
Whether such proposals are practical or justified is beyond the scope of this analysis. What matters is that their very emergence suggests any Iranian response would likely extend beyond conventional military retaliation and could also include political and nuclear policy measures.
The Story Behind the Pezeshkian-Sharif Call: Did Iran Threaten a Nuclear Reveal?
WANA (Jun 05) – Speculation has intensified within international geopolitical circles following claims by prominent political analysts that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian allegedly informed Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Iran’s readiness to unveil a nuclear weapon. The claim was initially brought to light by former CIA analyst Larry Johnson, who alleged that Islamabad […]
What Trump May Actually Need
Perhaps the defining feature of the current crisis is that it can no longer be explained through military logic alone.
If Washington’s sole objective were to destroy a single facility, there would have been little need for weeks of media coverage, the release of satellite imagery, and finally a public announcement by the U.S. president himself. Taken together, these developments suggest that any operation against Mount Kolang—should it occur—is intended to have significance both on the battlefield and in the arena of public perception.
That is why the central question may not be whether the United States is capable of striking Mount Kolang. The more important question is whether Trump needs a military target—or a political narrative that allows him to bring the war to a close.
If the latter is true, then Mount Kolang may represent less a nuclear facility than the final card the White House hopes to place on the table before returning to diplomacy—a card whose true value lies not in the scale of destruction it produces, but in the story that can be told afterward.
Is the United States Considering a Ground Operation in Iran?
WANA (Jul 19) – In recent days, following reports in U.S. media about the consideration of options such as seizing some Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf, a familiar question has once again entered public debate: Is Washington actually approaching a ground operation against Iran, or is this scenario less a real military plan […]
