‘Fake news': Trump rejects intelligence report suggesting US strikes didn't destroy Iran nuclear sites
US President Donald Trump, on Tuesday (June 24), pushed back against a CNN report which, citing an early US intelligence assessment, suggested that the US military strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure failed to destroy the core components of Tehran's nuclear programme.
Trump rebuffed the report, calling it 'fake news', claiming the airstrikes were 'ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MILITARY STRIKES IN HISTORY.'
He reiterated that 'THE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED!'
While on his way to the NATO summit in the Netherlands, he told reporters aboard Air Force One that the press was very 'disrespectful' of the US strikes.
'And our B2 pilots made this all possible. They had a magnificent hit in the dark of night with no moon, no light, no nothing. They hit the target perfectly, wiped it out, and the press is very disrespectful. I saw CNN fake news going: Well, maybe it wasn't a perfect hit. It was perfect. They said maybe it did destroy it, we agree, it did destroy it, but maybe it could have destroyed it more. No, No. Everyone hit, and it's very disrespectful to those great geniuses and patriots that flew those planes through tremendous dangers,' Trump said.
The CNN report
The CNN report claimed that US military strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, likely set back the country's nuclear programme by only a few months, citing an early US intelligence assessment.
Quoting two people familiar with the developments, the report suggested that the stockpile of Iran's enriched uranium was not destroyed in the US strikes and Tehran's centrifuges, targeted by Israel and the United States, remain largely 'intact'.
The DIA reports stated that the enriched uranium, which could be put to use for manufacturing nuclear weapons, may have been moved to other secret nuclear sites maintained by Iran.
'So the (DIA) assessment is that the US set them back maybe a few months, tops,' CNN quoted one of the people as saying.
White House Press Secretary disputes report
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt swiftly disputed the report, labelling it 'flat-out wrong'.
In a post on X, Leavitt said, 'This alleged 'assessment' is flat-out wrong and was classified as 'top secret' but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community.'
🚨FAKE NEWS CNN STRIKES AGAIN:
This alleged 'assessment' is flat-out wrong and was classified as 'top secret' but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community.
The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean…
— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) June 24, 2025
'Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration,' she added.
The report casts doubt on Trump's claims, who has repeatedly asserted that the recent US military strikes had 'completely and totally obliterated' Tehran's nuclear infrastructure.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
30 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Oil prices rise 2% as investors assess Iran-Israel ceasefire, Fed outlook
Oil prices climbed 2 per cent on Wednesday as investors assessed the stability of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, while support also came from market expectations that interest rate cuts could happen soon in the United States, the world's largest economy. Brent crude futures rose $1.31, or 2 per cent, to $68.45 a barrel at 0750 GMT, while US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude gained $1.24 cents, or 1.9 per cent, to $65.61. Brent settled on Tuesday at its lowest since June 10 and WTI since June 5, both before Israel launched a surprise attack on key Iranian military and nuclear facilities on June 13. Prices had rallied to five-month highs after the US attacked Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend. "Geopolitical risk premiums have been reduced and will take a backseat for Chair Powell's first testimony to Congress (yesterday) has hinted at a slight chance of bringing forward the first rate cut of 2025 to should offer some form of floor on oil prices from the demand side," said OANDA senior market analyst Kelvin Wong. Technical factors drove price increases during the session, he added. Lower interest rates typically spur economic growth and demand for oil. A slew of US macroeconomic data released overnight including on consumer confidence showed possibly weaker than expected economic growth in the world's largest oil consumer, bolstering expectations of Federal Reserve rate cuts this year. Futures point to nearly 60 basis points worth of easing by December. On the geopolitical front, a preliminary US intelligence assessment said US airstrikes did not destroy Iran's nuclear capability and only set it back by a few months, as a shaky ceasefire brokered by US President Donald Trump took hold between Iran and Israel. Earlier on Tuesday, both Iran and Israel signalled that the air war between the two nations had ended, at least for now, after Trump publicly scolded them for violating a ceasefire. As the two countries lifted civilian restrictions after 12 days of war - which the US joined with an attack on Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities - each sought to claim victory. "While concerns regarding Middle Eastern supply have diminished for now, they have not entirely disappeared, and there remains a stronger demand for immediate supply," said ING analysts in a client note. Oil prices will likely consolidate at around $65-70 per barrel levels as traders look to more US macroeconomic data this week and the Fed's rate decision, said independent market analyst Tina Teng. Investors were also waiting on US government data on domestic crude and fuel stockpiles due on Wednesday. [EIA/S] Industry data showed US crude inventories fell by 4.23 million barrels in the week ended June 20, market sources said, citing American Petroleum Institute figures on Tuesday. [API/S] (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Donald Trump's Nobel Peace Prize nomination in jeopardy after explosive fallout with Ukraine and Pakistan—what happens now?
Donald Trump has been formally nominated for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, credited for helping negotiate a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. The nomination was submitted by U.S. Republican Congressman Buddy Carter, who described Trump's efforts as 'extraordinary and historic.' In his letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Carter highlighted Trump's role in halting a rapidly escalating conflict, saying the agreement 'offered the world a rare glimpse of hope.' Carter added that Trump's involvement required 'both courage and clarity,' and that the resulting ceasefire helped prevent what could have been a wider regional war in the Middle East. Ukrainian lawmaker withdraws support over Ukraine stance However, Trump's nomination has not been without controversy. Oleksandr Merezhko, a senior Ukrainian lawmaker who had earlier nominated Trump for the same prize, withdrew his support. Merezhko, who chairs Ukraine's parliamentary foreign affairs committee, told Newsweek he no longer believed Trump could deliver on his promise to end the Russia-Ukraine war. 'I have lost any sort of faith and belief in Trump and his ability to secure a ceasefire between Moscow and Kyiv,' he said. Merezhko also criticized Trump's reluctance to impose sanctions on Russia and described his response to recent missile attacks on Kyiv as 'appeasement.' In March, Ukraine accepted a U.S.-backed peace proposal, but Russia has not responded. Trump previously claimed he would end the conflict within 24 hours if re-elected. In May, he said, 'If Putin is stalling, we'll respond a little bit differently,' but did not follow up with action. Pakistan praises Trump, then Condemns US strikes Pakistan had initially expressed strong support for Trump's nomination. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar credited him for reducing tensions between India and Pakistan and submitted a formal nomination. However, this endorsement was short-lived. A day after Trump's ceasefire announcement, he approved a U.S. strike on three Iranian nuclear sites. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry quickly responded with criticism, calling the military action 'deeply disturbing.' Ceasefire named '12-day war'; Trump voices disappointment The ceasefire between Israel and Iran, which Trump announced on a Monday, came just two days after the military action. He proposed naming the conflict the '12-Day War' and called the resolution a pivotal step toward avoiding broader violence in the region. Despite this, Trump expressed frustration over his past diplomatic efforts going unrecognized. On Truth Social, he said, 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do,' referencing previous attempts like the Abraham Accords and mediation efforts involving India-Pakistan and Serbia-Kosovo. Speaking to reporters, he added, 'I should have gotten it four or five times… They won't give me a Nobel Peace Prize because they only give it to liberals.' So far, only three U.S. presidents—Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Barack Obama—have received the Nobel nomination is official, but wavering international support and political criticism may complicate the path ahead.
Mint
39 minutes ago
- Mint
Nouriel Roubini: Regime change in Iran could give peace a chance in West Asia
Nouriel Roubini Hostilities between Israel and Iran may be ending after sharp US intervention, but the Iranian regime has been shaken and may fall. Should it be replaced, not just the West, but the whole volatile region might be better off. Iranians have revolted against their regime before and when given the chance, they have always chosen moderate leaders over theocratic zealots. Gift this article Last November, I said that Israel was likely to attack Iran's nuclear and other military facilities, even go so far as to eliminate the 'regime's top military and political leaders." I also argued that 'any US administration would inevitably continue to support [Israel], directly or indirectly." Last November, I said that Israel was likely to attack Iran's nuclear and other military facilities, even go so far as to eliminate the 'regime's top military and political leaders." I also argued that 'any US administration would inevitably continue to support [Israel], directly or indirectly." Regardless of divisions in Tel Aviv about the conduct of war in Gaza, the broad consensus across the Israeli political spectrum— including centre-left critics of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—was that Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, seen as an existential threat to Israel. Centrist leaders such as Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid criticized Netanyahu for being soft on Iran. It was only matter of time before Israel struck Iran, which, starting on 7 October 2023, had unleashed Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and Shia militias in Syria and Iraq against Israel. After Tel Aviv decimated these proxies and Iran lost deterrence, Iran's only option was to gain nukes, an unacceptable outcome for Israel and the West broadly. Thus, Israel's attack against Iran. And since some of Iran's hardened nuclear facilities were robust enough to withstand Israeli weapons, it was clear that the US would intervene to destroy those units, despite the anti-interventionist sentiment of US President Donald Trump's political base. Iran counter-attacked Israel with missile barrages [and later fired at a US base in Qatar, causing no serious damage]. [Trump announced a ceasefire thereafter], but the Iranian regime is so weakened that it can barely defend itself, let alone [hurt the US]. Yes, some Shia militias may try to attack well-defended US bases and troops in the region. But, leaving aside the risk of even more forceful US and Israeli attacks, they cannot damage much. Also, the Iranian regime's ability and veiled willingness to block the Strait of Hormuz, mine the Gulf and/or attack the oil facilities and pipelines of its Arab neighbours is limited. The regime is focusing on its survival, but its collapse looks likely in the coming months. True, for now Israel's attack has led even the anti-regime opposition to rally around the flag. Over time, however, a large majority of Iranians who despise a regime that has brought about the country's economic ruin will rise against it and replace it with something else. In 1990, Iran's per capita GDP was almost equal to that of Israel; today, Israel's is nearly 15 times higher. Iran's energy reserves rival Saudi Arabia's, yet it has lost hundreds of billions of dollars in potential energy revenues in [fierce but futile] opposition to the West. Also Read: Israel-Iran conflict: Echoes of history haunt West Asia Today, Iranians face skyrocketing inflation, collapsing real incomes, mass poverty and even hunger not because of US and Western sanctions, but because of their rulers' policies. A country that could have been richer than any Gulf oil state is near bankruptcy, owing to the regime's corruption, incompetence and strategic recklessness. In addition to being a curse to its own people, the Islamic Republic has financed terror groups in West Asia for decades and caused state failure or semi-failure across the region: in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza/Palestine and Iraq. Stabilization and recovery of the region's failing and failed states requires regime change in Iran. The Iranian people could trigger it over the next year. Iranians have revolted against their regime at least a half-dozen times in the last few decades, and, when given the chance, they have always chosen moderate leaders over theocratic zealots. Also Read: Javier Blas: An Israel-Iran war may not rattle the oil market For now, financial markets are correctly betting that the global impact of this recent war is likely to be minimal. Current movements of oil prices, US and global equities, US and global bond yields, and currencies suggest that a major stagflationary shock coming from a disruption of production and energy exports from the Gulf remains only a tail risk, not the baseline scenario. The 1973 Yom Kippur War and Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979 led to a huge spike in oil prices that fuelled the severe stagflations of 1974-75 and 1980-82. This time is likely to be different: the energy input in consumption and production in oil-importing economies is much lower than in the 1970s; the US and other major new non-Opec energy producers have emerged; Saudi Arabia and others are able to tap large excess production capacity and inventories. And in case oil prices rise as US actions create new risks, various macro policies and other tools can be used to reduce the stagflationary impact. A nuclear Iran would have been a threat not just to Israel but all Sunni regimes in the region, as well as the West. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said what many world leaders think but don't want to admit in public: 'Israel is doing the dirty work for all of us." Even China and Russia have shown restraint. Radical forces have destabilized West Asia for decades, with spillover effects on the West. It took Israel to weaken and destroy Iran's proxies. Regime collapse in Iran may boost stability and allow for reconstruction, with diplomatic relations established between Israel and Saudi Arabia. A new government in Israel more open to peace with Palestinians and an eventual two-state solution will then be possible. But the Iranian Hydra needs to be replaced with a rational regime eager [for peace]. ©2025/Project Syndicate The author is professor emeritus of economics at New York University's Stern School of Business and author of 'MegaThreats: Ten Dangerous Trends That Imperil Our Future, and How to Survive Them'. Topics You May Be Interested In
