US didn't destroy Iran's nuclear program: What new intelligence report says
The United States' strikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday failed to destroy underground facilities, and set Tehran's nuclear programme back only by a few months, according to an assessment of a confidential American intelligence report.
The 'top secret' document prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) – the intelligence arm of the Pentagon – and published by major US news outlets on Tuesday is at odds with President Donald Trump's claims about the strikes. Trump has insisted that the nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan were 'obliterated' by a combination of bunker busting and conventional bombs.
Trump and his administration's senior officials are dismissing the intelligence report and calling out the reporting over the DIA's assessment as 'fake news'.
Speaking at a NATO summit in The Hague, the US president said he believed Iran's nuclear programme was set back by decades.
So, what did the DIA assessment say about US strikes? What has Iran said about the attacks? And how does the intelligence report contrast with the Trump administration's public claims?
What did the DIA report say?
A preliminary report prepared by the DIA noted that rather than obliterating Iran's nuclear programme, the US bombings had only set it back by a few months.
Before Israel attacked Iran on June 13, US agencies had noted that if Iran rushed to assemble a nuclear weapon, it would take it about three months.
The DIA's five-page report now estimates this to be delayed by less than six months, reported The New York Times. As per the early findings, the US strikes blocked the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse the underground facilities.
The DIA report also reveals that the US agency believes that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium was moved before the strikes, which destroyed little of the nuclear material.
Shortly after the US strikes on June 22, Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to the chairman of the Iranian parliament, claimed that the authorities had evacuated the Fordow facility in advance. 'Iran has been expecting strikes on Fordow for several days. This nuclear facility was evacuated, no irreversible damage was sustained during today's attack,' Mohammadi had said.
The US president on Wednesday said he doesn't buy Iranian claims that they moved enriched uranium out of the Fordow nuclear facility. 'I believe they didn't have a chance to get anything out because they acted fast,' said Trump. 'If it would have taken two weeks, maybe, but it's very hard to remove that kind of material… and very dangerous.
'Plus, they knew we were coming,' Trump added. 'And if they know we're coming, they're not going to be down there.'
CNN first reported on the DIA report, quoting unnamed officials that the US strikes' effect on all three sites – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – was largely restricted to aboveground structures, which were severely damaged.
On Tuesday, the Trump administration told the United Nations Security Council that the US strikes had 'degraded' the Iranian facilities – short of Trump's earlier assertion that the attacks had 'obliterated' the sites.
The strikes have reportedly badly damaged the electrical system at the Fordow facility. However, it was not immediately clear how long Iran could take to gain access to the underground facilities and repair these systems.
On Monday, Rafael Grossi, the head of the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA, said that while 'no one, including the IAEA, is in a position to have fully assessed the underground damage at Fordow', it is expected to be 'very significant'.
Two people familiar with the DIA's assessment told CNN that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed and the centrifuges are largely 'intact'.
Some analysts cautioned against drawing final conclusions. Analysts told the Reuters news agency that the extent of damage to the Fordow uranium enrichment facility would not necessarily be revealed if the assessment was based on satellite imagery.
How did the US strike Iranian nuclear sites?
After 10 days of fighting between Israel and Iran, the US had militarily intervened on June 22 by hitting the Iranian nuclear sites.
Fordow is a highly fortified underground uranium enrichment facility reportedly buried hundreds of metres deep in the mountains in northwestern Iran. While Natanz is Iran's largest and most central enrichment complex, containing vast halls of centrifuges, some underground, Isfahan is a major nuclear research and production centre that includes a uranium conversion facility and fuel fabrication plants.
The US forces dropped 14 30,000-pound (13,000kg) bunker-buster bombs, while Navy submarines are said to have coordinated strikes by cruise missiles at the Natanz and Isfahan sites.
The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) – the most powerful bunker-buster bomb in the US military arsenal weighing nearly 13,000kg (30,000lb) – was used in the strike.
The US intervention was understood to be critical for the Israeli campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities, especially Fordow, due to its depth that kept it out of reach for the Israeli military.
How did the DIA report contrast with Trump's claims?
In March this year, the US spy chief Tulsi Gabbard had informed Congress that there was no evidence Iran was building a nuclear weapon, and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he had earlier suspended in 2003.
On June 17, as Israel and Iran continued to trade ballistic missiles, Trump was returning to Washington from the G7 summit in Canada, when he snubbed his own administration, including the spy chief Gabbard, saying she and the intel agencies had gotten it 'wrong'.
He claimed that Iran was 'very close' to having a nuclear weapon. On June 22, the US struck Iranian nuclear facilities. 'The strikes were a spectacular military success,' Trump said in a televised address. 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.'
The next day, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, 'The damage to the Nuclear sites in Iran is said to be 'monumental.' The hits were hard and accurate. Great skill was shown by our military. Thank you!'
On Wednesday, at the NATO summit, he reiterated his stance. 'The last thing they [Iran] want to do is enrich anything right now… They're not going to have a bomb and they're not going to enrich,' he said at The Hague.
Top officials from his administration, including Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have repeated the obliteration claims since then.
'Based on everything we have seen – and I've seen it all – our bombing campaign obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons,' Hegseth said in a statement provided to Reuters.
'Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target – and worked perfectly. The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran; so anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the President and the successful mission.'
How has Trump, the White House reacted?
Trump spent a good amount of time letting off steam on his Truth Social platform after the DIA report dropped.
'THE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED! BOTH THE TIMES AND CNN ARE GETTING SLAMMED BY THE PUBLIC!' Trump wrote in all-caps, referring to the reporting by The New York Times and CNN.
'FAKE NEWS CNN, TOGETHER WITH THE FAILING NEW YORK TIMES, HAVE TEAMED UP IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEMEAN ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MILITARY STRIKES IN HISTORY,' Trump said in a post.
The US president also posted a series of apparently bizarre videos, including one of B-2 bombers taking off to a 'bomb Iran' song in the background.
Trump is currently in the Netherlands, attending this week's NATO summit, and reiterated to reporters that the damage from the strikes was significant. 'I think it's been completely demolished,' he said, adding, 'Those pilots hit their targets. Those targets were obliterated, and the pilots should be given credit.
'That place is under rock. That place is demolished,' Trump responded to a question on the possibility of Iran rebuilding its nuclear program.
He took further shots at CNN, saying: 'These cable networks are real losers. You're gutless losers. I say that to CNN because I watch it – I have no choice. I got to watch it. It's all garbage. It's all fake news.'
He said the intelligence following the strikes in Iran was 'inconclusive'. 'The intelligence says we don't know. It could've been very severe. That's what the intelligence suggests.'
'It was very severe. There was obliteration,' he reiterated on Wednesday.
The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, called the DIA assessment 'flat-out wrong' and leaked to the press 'by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community'.
'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program,' she said in a statement. 'Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: Total obliteration.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
24 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump administration sues Maryland court system over deportation rulings
The administration of United States President Donald Trump has filed an extraordinary lawsuit against the Maryland district court system and its federal judges, accusing them of having 'used and abused' their powers to stymie deportations. The complaint was lodged late on Tuesday. In its 22 pages, the administration accuses Maryland's federal courts of 'unlawful, anti-democratic' behaviour for placing limits on Trump's deportation policies. Fifteen district judges are named among the defendants, as is a clerk of court, one of the administrative officials in the court system. The complaint advances an argument that Trump and his allies have long made publicly: that the president has a mandate from voters to carry out his campaign of mass deportation — and that the courts are standing in the way. 'Injunctions against the Executive Branch are particularly extraordinary because they interfere with that democratically accountable branch's exercise of its constitutional powers,' the lawsuit reads. It seeks an immediate injunction against a recent ruling from Chief Judge George Russell III, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama. Russell had issued a standing order that would automatically take effect each time an immigrant files a petition for habeas corpus — in other words, a petition contesting their detention. The chief judge's order prevents the Trump administration from deporting the immigrant in question for a period of two business days after the petition is filed. That time frame, Russell added, can be extended at the discretion of the court. The idea is to protect an immigrant's right to due process — their right to a fair hearing in the legal system — so that they have the time to appeal their deportation if necessary. But the Trump administration said that Russell's order, and other orders from federal judges in Maryland, do little more than subvert the president's power to exercise his authority over immigration policy. 'Every unlawful order entered by the district courts robs the Executive Branch of its most scarce resource: time to put its policies into effect,' the lawsuit argued. Trump's immigration policies have faced hundreds of legal challenges since the president took office for his second term in January. Tuesday's lawsuit admits as much, citing that fact as evidence of judicial bias against Trump's immigration agenda. 'In the first 100 days of President Trump's current term, district courts have entered more nationwide injunctions than in the 100 years from 1900 to 2000, requiring the Supreme Court to intervene again and again in recent weeks,' the lawsuit said. The Supreme Court has upheld the right to due process, writing in recent cases like JGG v Trump that immigrants must be able to seek judicial review for their cases. But critics have argued that other recent decisions have undermined that commitment. Earlier this week, for instance, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court's ruling that barred the US government from deporting immigrants to third-party countries without prior notice. Tuesday's lawsuit against the Maryland federal court system appears poised to test whether the judicial branch can continue to serve as a check against the executive branch's powers, at least as far as immigration is concerned. The lawsuit attacks Maryland's immigration-related court orders on several fronts. For example, it questions whether 'immediate and irreparable injury' is likely in the deportation cases. It also asserts that the federal courts are impeding immigration courts — which fall under the authority of the executive branch — from greenlighting deportations. But the complaint also emphasises the need for speed in executing the removals of immigrants from the US. 'Removals can take months of sensitive diplomacy to arrange and often do not completely come together until the last minute,' the Trump administration's lawsuit said. 'A delay can undo all of those arrangements and require months of additional work before removal can be attempted again.' Maryland is a reliably Democratic-leaning state, and the Trump administration has been dealt some significant setbacks in its federal courts. That, in turn, has led the president and his allies to denounce the courts for 'judicial overreach', a theme reprised in Tuesday's court filing. One of the most prominent immigration cases unfolding in the US is that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant and resident of Maryland who was deported despite a protection order allowing him to remain in the country. His lawyers have maintained he fled El Salvador to escape gang violence. His deportation was challenged before District Judge Paula Xinis, one of the judges named in Tuesday's complaint. Xinis ruled in early April that the US must 'facilitate and effectuate' Abrego Garcia's return from the El Salvador prison where he was being held, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision — though it struck the word 'effectuate' for being unclear. The Maryland judge then ordered the Trump administration to provide updates about the steps it was taking to return Abrego Garcia to the US. She has since indicated the administration could be held in contempt of court for failing to do so. Abrego Garcia was abruptly returned to the US on June 6, after more than two and a half months imprisoned in El Salvador. The Trump administration said it brought him back to face criminal charges for human trafficking in Tennessee. That case is currently ongoing, and Abrego Garcia has denied the charges against him. That legal proceeding, and Xinis's orders, were not explicitly named in Tuesday's lawsuit. But the complaint offered a broad critique of orders like hers. 'Defendants' lawless standing orders are nothing more than a particularly egregious example of judicial overreach interfering with Executive Branch prerogatives,' the lawsuit argued, 'and thus undermining the democratic process.'
Al Jazeera
43 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Did the US and Israel really obliterate Iran's nuclear facilities?
Did the US and Israel really obliterate Iran's nuclear facilities? NewsFeed A leaked intelligence report has cast doubt on Trump and Netanyahu's claims that their attacks on Iran destroyed its nuclear programme. Analysts say some facilities weren't even hit, while 400kg of uranium is unaccounted for. Soraya Lennie takes a look. Video Duration 02 minutes 23 seconds 02:23 Video Duration 02 minutes 56 seconds 02:56 Video Duration 02 minutes 22 seconds 02:22 Video Duration 02 minutes 02 seconds 02:02 Video Duration 00 minutes 44 seconds 00:44 Video Duration 00 minutes 18 seconds 00:18 Video Duration 00 minutes 46 seconds 00:46
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
NATO commits to major defence spending hike sought by Trump
NATO allies have agreed to massively boost military spending while affirming their 'ironclad commitment' to collective defence. Leaders from the 32-member bloc pledged to allocate up to 5 percent of their national GDP to defence and related sectors by 2035, describing the move as a 'quantum leap' in collective security. The new pledge was made in a summit communique agreed on Wednesday in The Hague. It stated that members would 'invest 5 percent of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence- and security-related spending'. The commitment includes a review point in 2029, conveniently set for after the next US presidential election, to evaluate progress and reassess the threat posed by Russia. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte hailed the agreement as 'transformational', a sentiment echoed by several leaders, though it glossed over clear differences within the alliance. US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly pushed for a higher NATO defence spending commitment, took credit for the shift. '[It's] something that no one really thought possible,' Trump said at the summit. 'They said, 'You did it, sir. You did it.' Well, I don't know if I did it, but I think I did.' In a move that will likely curry favour with Trump, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Wednesday that the United Kingdom expects to spend at least 4.1 percent on defence and security by 2027. Divisions over spending Not everyone is on board. Spain has already said it cannot meet the 5 percent target. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez insisted that his government would stick with the existing 2 percent threshold — a benchmark first set following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. 'Spain can carry out NATO's defence plans at 2 percent of GDP,' Sanchez said. 'This summit secures both our national security and the welfare of our citizens.' Spain is NATO's lowest spender on defence. In 2024, it spent 1.24 percent and was among the nine member countries to fall short of the 2 percent target. Trump was quick to criticise Madrid's stance, threatening retaliation through economic means. 'They want to stay at 2 percent. I think it's terrible,' the US president said. 'We're negotiating a trade deal with Spain — they'll end up paying double.' Belgium and Slovakia also raised objections. Brussels warned that the timeline was unrealistic, while Bratislava said it reserved the right to make independent decisions on its own military spending. Steep spending demands Despite the pushback, the declaration formalised new targets: 3.5 percent for NATO's 'core defence spending,' plus an additional 1.5 percent for broader security measures — from infrastructure upgrades like roads and ports to cyber defence and emergency response capabilities. Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store described the agreement as unprecedented. 'We struggled for years just to get past 2 percent,' he said. 'Now we're talking about 3.5 percent, which is necessary to build the capabilities we need.' The spending demands are steep. As the US increasingly shifts strategic focus to the Middle East and Indo-Pacific, European members are being urged to shoulder more of the military burden. The commitments come as the US remains engaged in multiple theatres, including ongoing arms support for Ukraine's fight against Russia, supporting Israel's war on Gaza, and backing continued strikes on Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. More recently, Israel's war with Iran has further stretched US military resources.
