logo
A week of shifting descriptions of Iran attack spark ongoing questions

A week of shifting descriptions of Iran attack spark ongoing questions

Yahoo13 hours ago

A week after President Donald Trump ordered a U.S. attack on three Iranian nuclear sites, the explanations and descriptions of what happened voiced by him, top aides and early intelligence reports paint contrasting pictures of the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear program.
While the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth repeatedly claimed that Iran's nuclear program has been "obliterated," preliminary assessments — including from the Pentagon's own intelligence wing — painted an evolving picture as the week went on.
Trump said he ordered the attack on June 21 to strike a uranium enrichment site located in 300 feet deep in a mountain in Fordo in northwestern Iran, an uranium enrichment site in Natanz and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center following reports that Iranian officials failed to comply with international nuclear regulations.
And as those early damage assessments cast doubt on the extent to which Iran nuclear program was crippled, several of Trump's top aides and allied lawmakers also appeared to scale back the stated goals of the attack.
Here are some of the accounts and characterizations over the last week.
On Sunday morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed Trump's statement from Saturday night, just after the strikes, that the sites had been "obliterated."
MORE: 'Way too early' to know full damage done to Iran nuclear sites, Joint Chiefs chairman says
"It was clear we devastated the Iranian nuclear program," he added.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, however, declined to go as far, saying it would take more time to assess the extent of the damage done.
Hegseth acknowledged that damage assessment was ongoing but stuck by the description he and Trump were using.
"All of our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike and had the desired effect, which means especially the primary target here, we believe we achieved destruction of capabilities there," he said.
Officials and inspectors from outside Iran have not been able to gain direct access to the bombed sites to make a first-hand assessment.
MORE: Centrifuges at Fordow nuclear facility 'suffered a great deal,' IAEA director says
Trump officials had a more nuanced take after news reports surfaced Tuesday about an initial Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that said the attack set back Iran's nuclear program only by months.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the leaks of the military's report but did not go as far as to claim that the sites were obliterated.
Instead, he insisted that "very significant, substantial damage was done" to key components of Iran's nuclear program, "and we're just learning more about it."
At the same time, Rubio provided more details about the attack, including that the bunker-buster bombs were dropped on ventilation shafts leading deep inside Fordo's heavily fortified facility -- buried, officials and experts said, 200 to 300 feet inside a mountain.
He ultimately acknowledged that it was difficult to get a read on damage inflicted to Fordo at this point, but asserted "the bottom line is real damage was done."
That same day, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claimed in a statement that the three facilities were destroyed.
The director general of the U.N.'s nuclear oversight agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, said Wednesday that he believed some of Iran's enriched uranium had been moved from the sites before the attacks.
Trump refuted that analysis.
"It would have taken two weeks, maybe. But it's very hard to remove that kind of material, very hard and very dangerous. Plus, they knew we were coming, and if they know we're coming, they're not going to be down there," he said Wednesday.
Trump reiterated that the sites and the uranium were buried under rubble and inaccessible, adding that trucks seen in satellite images at the plant before the attack -- which some speculated could have been used to move the nuclear material -- were construction vehicles being used to cover the ventilation shaft openings with protective concrete.
According to the two people familiar with the DIA's classified report, the bombing sealed off the entrances to two of the three nuclear sites targeted in the attack but most of the damage was done to structures above ground, leaving the lower structures intact.
The assessment also found that at least some enriched uranium remained – possibly moved from the nuclear sites ahead of the blasts.
The next day, on Thursday, Hegseth held a news conference where he slammed the news media over reporting but did not make the same assessment on the nuclear materials.
Asked twice during the briefing if he could be more definitive about whether the enriched uranium was moved before the attack, Hegseth said the Pentagon was "watching every aspect."
At that same Thursday briefing, Caine noted it's not his job to assess the damage, saying, "We don't grade our own homework."
Hegseth also highlighted what appeared to be a different goal of the mission, arguing the attack had succeeded because it led to stopping the fighting between Iran and Israel — rather than the facilities' destruction because it destroyed Iran's nuclear program.
"We got that peace, that ceasefire, that option because of strength, because of [Trump's] willingness to use American military might that no one else on the planet can do with the kind of planners and operators that the chairman just laid out," he said.
Then, on Friday, Trump echoed that sentiment.
"They put out that fire once that happened, once those bombs got dropped out, that war was over," he said.
Still, the president claimed again that the sites were obliterated during a news conference.
MORE: Secrets on Iran nuclear strike spill into open as Pentagon defends bombing
"We finished them off," he said, adding, "I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear anytime soon."
Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister said on Iranian State TV Thursday, however, the facilities were not destroyed and his country will have leverage in negotiations.
On Capitol Hill on Thursday, after administration officials gave lawmakers a classified briefing on the strikes, Republican lawmakers acknowledged that the U.S. strikes may not have destroyed Iran's cache of enriched uranium. But they said that wasn't part of the mission.
"The purpose of the mission was to eliminate certain particular aspects of their nuclear program. Those were eliminated. To get rid of the nuclear material was not part of the mission,' Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., told CNN.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the "program was obliterated at those three sites," but added, "I don't know where the 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium exists. But it wasn't part of the targets there."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Transcript: Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 29, 2025
Transcript: Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 29, 2025

CBS News

time6 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Transcript: Amir-Saeid Iravani, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 29, 2025

The following is the transcript of an interview with former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, Pfizer board member and non-executive chairman of the board at Illumina, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on June 29, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, who joins us from New York. Welcome to "Face the Nation." AMB. IRAVANI: Thank you for having me. MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador, can you give us some clarity? Does Iran intend to reconstitute a nuclear enrichment program on its soil? AMB. IRAVANI: You know that we are a member, responsible member, of the NPT, and according to the- this treaty, we have the mutual rights. It means that the right of one side will be the obligation of the other side. In the NPT, it has been defined that we have two very explicit right. The first is that we can have research on development, we can have the production of uranium, and we can have, to use, the peaceful energy. And the second right is that the legal protection by the IAEA for our activity and technical cooperation for our development program. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. AMB. IRAVANI: And in return, also, it will be two right for the agency in this regard, that they should have the full access according to the safe, comprehensive safeguard agreement. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. AMB. IRAVANI: And the second one is that to preserve our peaceful nuclear activity, will remain always in peaceful manner. So the enrichment is our right, and an inalienable right, and we want to implement this right. MARGARET BRENNAN: So you do plan to restart enrichment, that sounds like? AMB. IRAVANI: I think that enrichment will not- never stop. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, when you mentioned NPT, just for our listeners, you're talking about some of the international agreements Iran has made with the UN on nonproliferation and safeguards. You mentioned the UN nuclear inspectors. Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement yesterday saying that there were calls in Iran, this, I believe, is from a newspaper that the Supreme Leader oversees, accusing our prior guest, Rafael Grossi, of being an Israeli spy and calling for his arrest and execution. To be clear, is Iran threatening UN inspectors? AMB. IRAVANI: No, there is no any threat. It is a very clear law of the- our parliament that they have been suspended, our cooperation with IAEA, because the agency has not implemented their rights, their responsibility. Due to this it is a conditional law, and as long as this condition has not been set, so our cooperation with IAEA will be suspended. But whenever it set out as according to the law, so we can have- resume our cooperation. But there is no any threat against the general director of the IAEA. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that was published in Israel- in Iran's "Kayhan" newspaper. Your foreign minister did also say that the IAEA and Grossi himself are malign in intent. Are the IAEA personnel, are the inspectors already inside Iran safe? And can they go back to their work of inspecting your sites? AMB. IRAVANI: Exactly. They are in Iran. They are in the safe condition, but the activity has been suspended. They cannot have accesses to our site, but maybe some one, it is individual, opinion of the people that may criticize the IAEA or threat the general director. But we criticize IAEA. We- our assessment is that they have not done their jobs, so they failed and they prepared [inaudible] for such aggression against us. MARGARET BRENNAN: I imagine that you would condemn the calls for his execution? AMB. IRAVANI: Yeah. MARGARET BRENNAN: President Trump's-- AMB. IRAVANI: (INAUDIBLE) --media. MARGARET BRENNAN: I know, and you're speaking to us from the UN. President Trump said Friday that Iranian officials want to meet with him personally, and he said that will be soon. Mr. Ambassador, is Tehran planning to drop this demand of indirect communication with the United States, and will you begin speaking with the Trump administration? AMB. IRAVANI: See you, we were in the negotiation, but because we know that any dispute between Iran and United States or other parts of the JCPOA cannot be resolved without the negotiation and using the peaceful means for- to resolve this dispute. So we are in the negotiation, and we are ready for the negotiation, but after this aggression, it is not proper condition for a new round of the negotiation, and there is no request for negotiation and meeting with the president. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the United States is wanting to meet with Iran to talk, and while the supreme leader issued a statement saying Iran had dealt the U.S. a slap in the face, after that, President Trump said he had actually stopped Israel from going further and had stopped Israel from an attempt to kill your supreme leader. Why not take the offer of a diplomatic lifeline? Because he seems to be offering one. AMB. IRAVANI: It is very gross violation of the international law that- threatening the Supreme Leader of Islamic Republic of Iran or any head of state, they have impunity from any attack. So we should understand that, what is the principle and condition for any negotiation? Negotiation is- has its- the principles, and it is a give and take process. So we should engage in the negotiation and discuss with each other, maybe we reach to a conclusion or not, but the unconditional surrender is not negotiation. It is dictating the policy toward us. If they are ready for negotiation, they will find us ready for that, but if they want to dictate us, it is impossible for any negotiation with them, MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Ambassador, thank you for your time today. We will be watching and waiting to see if there are any diplomatic opportunities. We'll be right back.

Trump continues to project optimism that strikes on Iran ‘obliterated' its nuclear program
Trump continues to project optimism that strikes on Iran ‘obliterated' its nuclear program

Politico

time7 minutes ago

  • Politico

Trump continues to project optimism that strikes on Iran ‘obliterated' its nuclear program

President Donald Trump is insisting that his strikes on Iran last week left the country's nuclear program 'obliterated like nobody's ever seen before,' even as the United Nations nuclear watchdog says Tehran could resume uranium enrichment 'in a matter of months.' Trump told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo he doesn't think the satellite images of trucks at two of the nuclear sites later hit by American pilots mean the country smuggled out much of its enriched uranium. 'No, I think,' he told Bartiromo in a pre-recorded interview that aired on 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 'First of all, it's very hard to do, it's very dangerous to do. It's very heavy, very very heavy. It's a very hard thing to do. Plus, we didn't give them much notice because they didn't know we were coming until just, you know, then. And nobody thought we'd go after that site because everybody said that site is impenetrable.' The White House has continued to promote its attacks on Iran's nuclear program as a complete victory. But the administration has not been able to provide convincing evidence, as experts caution that a definitive assessment on the strikes' impact could take weeks or even longer. In an interview that aired Sunday on CBS' 'Face the Nation,' the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said the damage to Iranian facilities wrought by the attacks was 'not total.' And without clarification about the whereabouts of the enriched uranium, 'this will continue to be hanging, you know, over our heads as a potential problem,' he said. But the president is projecting confidence. 'You know what they moved? Themselves,' Trump told Bartiromo. 'They were all trying to live. They didn't move anything. They didn't think it was going to be actually doable, what we did.' And Trump doesn't think Iran has any incentive to rebuild its beleaguered nuclear program as the country contemplates its future following a damaging war with Israel and a tentative ceasefire. 'The last thing they want to do right now is think about nuclear,' he said. 'They have to put themselves back into condition, in shape.' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has long supported aggressive American action against Iran. But though he called the strikes on Iran 'a tremendous military success,' he said Sunday it was 'too early to tell' if Iran would ultimately abandon its ambitions to become a nuclear power. 'The question for the world: Does the regime still desire to make a nuclear weapon? The answer is yes. Do they still desire to destroy Israel and come after us? The answer is yes,' he said on ABC's 'This Week.'

Transcript: Scott Gottlieb on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 29, 2025
Transcript: Scott Gottlieb on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 29, 2025

CBS News

time12 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Transcript: Scott Gottlieb on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 29, 2025

The following is the transcript of an interview with former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, Pfizer board member and non-executive chairman of the board at Illumina, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on June 29, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: For a look now at some of the changes to America's public health policies under the Trump administration, we're joined by former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who sits on the board at Pfizer and is now the Chairman of the Board at Illumina. Good morning. Good to see you. DOCTOR SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Good morning. MARGARET BRENNAN: You know, Dr. Gottlieb, you worked in the first Trump administration. This second Trump administration seems very different in its approach to public health on a lot of fronts. One of them was really laid bare this week with this newly remade Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP. Secretary Kennedy had dismissed about 17 members of the existing board and put in some members of his own choice. And in a video, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics said federal immunization policy is, quote, 'no longer a credible process' and it's being politicized at the expense of children. That's a pretty stunning statement. Do you agree with the Academy of Pediatrics? DR. GOTTLIEB: Look, you're right. I worked in the first Trump administration. I was fortunate to do that and proud to serve in that administration. I think we did a lot of important things on public health. We presided over the first cell and gene therapy approvals. The president tried to expand access to those treatments through the Right to Try legislation that he championed. He supported the FDA on an effort to try to keep tobacco products out of the hands of kids, record number of generic approvals, and a lot of other accomplishments. I think a lot of people on my side of the political aisle feel that a lot of these policies that Secretary Kennedy is championing are- are going to be contained to vaccines and not bleed into a broader public health doctrine. I think that's not right. I think there's a lot of people now who don't think these things are particularly political, or shouldn't be, and don't think these decisions should be politically decided, who are going to find when they go to the doctor's office that vaccines that they may want to protect their lives or the lives of their families aren't going to be available. This does look like a political process right now. The secretary is going after issues that have long been bugaboos of him and his anti-vax group, Children's Health Defense. I don't think that's mistakable at this point. I think that he would probably acknowledge that. That he's taking on issues that he's championed for the last 20 years to restrict access to certain vaccines. That's going to grow. The list is growing, and it's going to start to be very tangible for people and go well beyond just the COVID vaccine, which is, I think, what most people think about when they perceive this administration's, or the secretary's efforts, to try to restrict access to vaccines. MARGARET BRENNAN: So one of the specific things from this meeting was advice to avoid flu vaccines containing an ingredient called thimerosal. Right around the same time as the meeting, the CDC removed information from its website that debunked claims that this ingredient was linked to autism. Secretary Kennedy says it's- it's journalists who are obscuring the truth. What do people need to know about the flu vaccine and this ingredient? DR. GOTTLIEB: Yeah, so this is an old ingredient. It's a preservative used in multi-dose vials of flu vaccine, primarily. Only a very small percentage of flu vaccine vials still contain it. What it is is an ingredient that's added to multi-dose vials because those vials you're going to go in and out of with different needles as you administer the vaccine to different patients. So they're not single dose injections. They're multi-dose vials that primarily used in some busy clinics, almost exclusively in adults right now. Back in the early 2000s, I was at FDA when we reformulated the vaccine, so we compelled manufacturers to reformulate the vaccines to take this preservative out. Not because we thought it was unsafe, but because there was a lot of consternation among anti-vax groups that they thought that there was a link between this ingredient and autism. The ingredient does contain small amounts of ethylmercury, not methylmercury, ethylmercury, which is the same kind of mercury found in fish, in very small- very small amounts. And so we compelled the manufacturers to reformulate the vast majority of vaccines, still four percent of flu vaccines that get administered, mostly to adults, are from these multi-dose vials. This has long been a bugaboo of the secretary and his group, the Children's Health Defense Fund. In fact, the only presentation at the ACIP meeting was from the head of that group. And you're right that there was a countering analysis from the CDC officials asserting that there's no link between thimerosal and autism. That- that analysis was taken down from the website. The secretary put out a statement that said that it wasn't- it didn't go through proper review. MARGARET BRENNAN: We're going to take a break, Dr. Gottlieb, and talk more with you on the other side of this. These are complicated issues I want to dig into with you. So we hope all of you will stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face the Nation. We return to our conversation with former FDA commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb. Dr. Gottlieb, just to pick back up, we were talking about the meeting that took place this past week with the newly reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, you know him, he's a doctor. He has oversight and chairs the Health Committee. He called for the meeting to be canceled because he said there's no CDC director in place. And when it comes to these appointees, he said many of them 'do not have significant experience studying microbiology, epidemiology or immunology' and they may have 'preconceived bias' against mRNA vaccines. It's- I'm not a doctor, but it seems to me that experience in immunology would be important if you're advising on immunizations. His counsel was ignored here. Is there any check on Secretary Kennedy, at this point? Is there a need to get a CDC director in place quickly? DR. GOTTLIEB: Yeah, well, the CDC director had a confirmation hearing this week, and hopefully she'll be in place soon. I think she's quite strong and a good pick for that job. The board, this ACIP board, isn't fully constituted. There's only seven members on the board. At its peak membership, it has about 15. And you're right, a lot of the people who have been appointed don't have deep experience, or any experience, quite frankly, in vaccine science. They are people who have been ideologically aligned with Secretary Kennedy in the past and worked with him, many of them, not all of them. And I think that that isn't something that even the secretary would probably dispute at this time, and it did lead to some awkward moments at that meeting. For example, you know, one member had to have explained to him the difference between an antibody prophylaxis and a vaccine. So there were evidence in that discussion where the CDC directors had to provide some, quite frankly, remedial assistance to help brief these members on the basis of vaccine science. So it did show, hopefully, once they fully constitute that board, you're going to get more balance on it. I think some people are skeptical. I remain hopeful that there will be some good members that get seated eventually. MARGARET BRENNAN: You know, one of the things about the American health system is that question of continued innovation. Earlier this month, the FDA approved a twice yearly injection of an HIV prevention drug called lenacapavir. How significant is an innovation like that, and given the environment you're talking about, will these new advisors get in the way of being able to get those kind of things to market? DR. GOTTLIEB: Yeah, this shouldn't come before ACIP. So this is a therapeutic. It's a long acting antiviral that provides six months of protection against HIV and was extremely effective at preventing HIV infection in a population that was high risk of contracting HIV. So it's a change in the formulation of an antiviral that allows it to be administered just twice a year and provide sustained exposure to the benefits of that antiviral. We're seeing a lot of innovation like this. There was also news this week from a small biotech company that I don't have any involvement with, that they had developed a pill that could provide sustained protection against flu. So it's an antiviral, but it is formulated in a way where it- it could be administered once ahead of flu season, to provide protection across the entire season, and also look to be very effective. So we're seeing a lot of innovations like this. What I'm worried about is innovation in vaccine science. I work on the venture capital side, where we make investments in- in new companies, and there has been a pullback of biotech startups that have been looking to develop new vaccines, for example, vaccines for Epstein-Barr Virus, which we know is linked to certain B-cell lymphomas, and maybe is linked to multiple sclerosis. That- that's a new area of science, the potential to vaccinate children against that, much like we vaccinate kids against HPV right now and prevent cervical cancer and other types of cancers. Maybe in the future, we may be vaccinating for EBV, but there's been a lot of pullback to that kind of investment. So I think we're going to see less innovation in vaccine science as a result of the environment we're in. MARGARET BRENNAN: Quickly, Secretary Kennedy was asked this week about the declarations in some states to start removing fluoride from water. Oklahoma made some moves that direction. He said you're going to see 'probably slightly more cavities,' but 'there's a direct inverse correlation between the amount of fluoride in your water and your loss of IQ.' What should parents be thinking about when they hear things like that? DR. GOTTLIEB: Well, look, this has been a long standing issue, another issue that Secretary Kennedy has championed over his career, this perceived- perception that there's a link between fluoride and water and some neurotoxic effects of that. That's been studied thoroughly. It's been, I think, fully debunked. There's very small amounts of fluoride in water, and at the levels that it's put into the water supply, it's been demonstrated to be safe. CDC's- has data showing that there's a 25% reduction in dental caries as a result of fluoride that's added routinely to the water supply. It's not just a question of increased dental cavities, but also oral health more generally, which we know is correlated to systemic health. MARGARET BRENNAN: Dr. Gottlieb, good to get your insight today. We'll be right back.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store