US President Donald Trump, for example, recently asserted that American military strikes had “destroyed” Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Yet this claim came under fire after the release of leaked intelligence assessments. The strikes hit three principal sites, Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow. Then they targeted the big guns, employing over 13,000 kg of such “bunker-buster” bombs to target the most fortified places. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) was directed to prepare that preliminary assessment. It was a shocking admission, as the operations had only furthered Iran’s nuclear ambitions by months at best.
During a press gaggle, Trump defended the effectiveness of the military action, taking time to make light of some of the reports that raised doubts about their impact. He specifically criticized media outlets such as CNN and The New York Times for attempting to “demean one of the most successful military strikes in history.” The President maintained that the strikes had achieved their goals, stating that “those pilots hit their targets, those targets were obliterated and the pilots should be given credit.”
Preliminary Assessment Raises Questions
Trump and US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had crowed about the success as a result of these strikes. The DIA evaluation shows a more complicated reality. In fact, the next essential report indicated that these bombings completely closed off entrances to two of those three facilities targeted. Yet the subterranean edifices held strong and did not cave in—surprising many. In addition, Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile was not rolled back.
General Dan Caine remarked on Truth Social that “the nuclear sites in Iran are completely destroyed,” yet he acknowledged the need for further analysis. Early signs showed “catastrophic damage and destruction” at each of the three sites. The burden on operations just didn’t carry over all that much.
The DIA’s findings suggest that the strikes may have only pushed back Iran’s nuclear program by less than six months. This unexpected development has shaken defense advocates and critics to their core. Unsurprisingly, these Americans are now asking whether the resulting military action was effective at achieving its stated objectives.
Political Fallout and Reactions
Given all of these changes, political responses have been equally polarized. Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for Trump, criticized the leaks as politically motivated, calling them “flat-out wrong” and describing the source as “an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community.” She emphasized that “everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”
Dorothy Shea, a prominent voice in US foreign policy, stated that the strikes “effectively fulfilled our narrow objective: to degrade Iran’s capacity to produce a nuclear weapon.” This statement is coming under increasing scrutiny as more information starts to surface.
