The Trump administration greenlit a $2.8 billion arms deal to supply Israel with thousands of heavy-duty 2,000-pound bombs, signaling a significant expansion of military aid.
The proposed package encompasses 40,000 one-ton munitions that are split evenly between standard MK-84s and BLU-117s along with 20,000 I-2000 Penetrator warheads designed to smash through deep underground soil, rock, and concrete before detonating.
While the State Department has submitted the proposed sale for informal congressional review, Secretary of State Marco Rubio retains emergency authority to bypass Capitol Hill, where a two-thirds majority in both chambers would be required to block the transaction.
The move fully cements a policy reversal from the Biden era, which paused a single shipment of 2,000-pound bombs meant for Israel. The current administration quickly unblocked that shipment upon taking office and approved an initial $2.7 billion weapons transfer shortly thereafter.
The rationale for providing these munitions comes from the reality of fortified underground warfare. John Spencer, chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, has emphasized that 2,000-pound bombs are vital tactical tools rather than indiscriminately destructive weapons. He has blasted myths surrounding the bombs, making clear that while they produce blast craters depending on the area, they are precise weapons intended for heavily fortified military targets.
“By no definition (words have meaning) has Israel done a genocide in Gaza,” Spencer wrote. “Not by the definition’s intent or actions requirements. No actual evidence support the intent or actions allegation. The government of Israel was in a war against the terror army of Hamas in Gaza after they invaded Israel on October 7th and withdrew into Gaza with 250 hostages; they were also at war with the terror army (more equipped than many nations) Hezbollah in Lebanon after they attack on October 8th. Israel is not working to exterminate an unarmed civilian population in Gaza or Lebanon. No evidence shows they have targeted civilians. All of the Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iran fronts have contained buried and fortified targets that can justify the use of modern 2,000-pound bombs.”
According to Spencer’s expert analysis, Israel’s biggest strategic challenge lies in neutralizing deeply buried command structures and stockpiles. Both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon have spent decades building huge underground networks, which sometimes went as deep as 200 feet under heavily populated areas. Smaller munitions simply lack the kinetic force and penetration capabilities required to collapse these hardened bunkers or reach high-value targets.
Furthermore, Spencer argues that restricting a military’s access to heavy bombs during city battles does not reduce civilian harm. Instead, it often leads to longer, far more destructive engagements.
Historical events such as the WWII Battle of Manila or the 1950 siege of Seoul showed that when bombs were restricted, fighting degenerated into drawn-out, block-by-block ground sieges that dramatically increased casualties and devastation of the cities.
By depriving an army of the bombs needed to quickly eliminate fortified positions, military operations stall, dragging out the duration of the war.
In Spencer’s view, ensuring Israel retains access to 2,000-pound bombs is critical for dismantling deeply entrenched terror networks and preventing prolonged warfare that ultimately increases human suffering on all sides.
.png)
.png)
