The same class of Washington think-tank hawks who sold the public on Iraqi WMDs are back with a new target—Iran's Pickaxe Mountain—and American families would once again foot the bill for another Middle Eastern bombing campaign with no exit in sight.

Nuclear expert Andrea Stricker of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told the New York Post that President Trump's best option to stop Iran from rebooting its nuclear weapons program is to take out the entrances to the underground site, where Iran's nuclear activities are allegedly visible from above. FDD has been a consistent voice for maximum pressure on Tehran for over a decade—part of the permanent Washington ecosystem that profits from perpetual foreign entanglements.

The pitch should sound familiar: secret weapons facilities, Israeli intelligence claiming Iran is moving centrifuges into a hardened mountain fortress, and a menu of options ranging from bunker-buster bombs to a risky "boots on the ground" operation. The Post reported Israel claimed to have intelligence of Iran moving centrifuges into the mountain—echoes of the Israeli intelligence that helped build the case for Iraq in 2002.

Stricker described the practical limits of air strikes: bunker-buster munitions may not penetrate 300 to 450 feet of granite. "Who knows how far down you'd have to go," she said, comparing the descent to a 38-story condo building. If the bunker busters fail, she said, "you could be left with the options of simply destroying the tunnel entrances with precision munitions"—a half-measure that at best delays the program and leaves U.S. forces committed to indefinite surveillance and potential follow-on strikes.

Trump has amped up the rhetoric, threatening Iran with "decapitation" if it doesn't make a deal and telling talk host Hugh Hewitt: "We're going to take out Pickaxe Mountain. Tell the Iranians to be ready." He added at a Camp David cabinet meeting: "We'll be hitting them very hard. At some point they're going to say we just can't take it anymore."

The escalation follows an attack on a Bermuda-flagged LNG tanker transiting the Strait of Hormuz overnight Saturday. Iran has not claimed responsibility. Iran says it is in the final stages of a deal with Oman to partially ensure passage through the strait—a diplomatic off-ramp that hawks have every incentive to bury.

The New York Post framed the strikes as a tactical menu of military options, burying the strategic question of what happens after the bombs fall. No one in the piece identifies a defined U.S. interest, a cost estimate, or an exit strategy. The FDD expert—part of a think tank funded by donors with long records of pushing U.S. military involvement in the Middle East—offered no accounting of what "success" looks like or how many American dollars and lives it would require.

Trump says the U.S. still has "massive" amounts of munitions despite leaks to the contrary. That leak itself signals that elements within the national security apparatus are pushing back against another open-ended commitment.

The question hanging over Pickaxe Mountain is the same one Americans should have asked before Iraq: who pays, who profits, and how does it end?