Trump says Iran's nuclear sites were 'obliterated.' Were they?
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and his defense chief say American warplanes completely "obliterated" Iran's three major nuclear complexes at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan using bunker-busting bombs that have the ability to penetrate underground targets.
While that may be the case, there has so far been no independent assessment of that assertion from nuclear watchdogs, international officials or others with direct information of the situation on the ground. And other U.S. officials have not used such definitive rhetoric.
"Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine told reporters a day after the strikes on June 22.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the main agency that assesses the scale and evolution of Iran's nuclear program, said hostilities would need to cease for it to resume inspections. The organization, housed within the United Nations, said it would hold an emergency meeting June 23.
It was not entirely clear what evidence or intelligence Trump was relying on when he told the world that Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity had been destroyed. He also disputed twice-disputed intelligence community findings before the strike that Iran was not close to producing a nuclear weapon.
"Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success," Trump said in a late-night June 21 address. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."
Hegseth used similar rhetoric at a morning news conference, saying that thanks to Trump's leadership, "Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated."
But a battle damage assessment is ongoing, Hegseth acknowledged during in the briefing. He noted it was the Pentagon's "initial assessment" its precision munitions had the desired effect.
"Especially in Fordow, which was the primary target here. We believe we achieved destruction of capabilities there," Hegseth told reporters.
Caine was more cautious. "It would be way too early for me to comment on what may or may not still be there," he said when asked about Iran's remaining nuclear capabilities during the same news conference.
Live updates: US warns of 'heightened threat environment' after strikes on Iran nukes
It was a "responsible" comment from Caine, said Simone Ledeen, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East in Trump's first administration.
Whether the Iranian nuclear program was set back a decade or decades and whether there is no more nuclear program period "really needs to be determined by a systematic battle damage assessment," she said.
Yet, given what the president and secretary of defense know of the bombs that were dropped and where, Ledeen added, "I don't think it's far-fetched for them to say that these sites were destroyed."
Democratic lawmakers on committees that oversee the military, intelligence community and foreign policy apparatus are pushing for classified briefings to help them reach their own conclusions.
"There is a lot we still don't know and we need an accurate, factual damage assessment," Senate Armed Services ranking member Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, said in a statement.
Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen also said in a statement, "We are still waiting to understand the extent to which that action has deterred Iran's nuclear threat."
"President Trump must now de-escalate tensions with Iran and immediately brief Congress," the New Hampshire Democrat said.
Vice President JD Vance did not specify the extent of the damage to Iran's sites as he made a round of television interviews the morning after the strike.
"But we know that we've set the Iranian nuclear program back substantially last night," Vance said on ABC News' "This Week" program. "Whether it's years or beyond that, we know it's going to be a very long time before Iran can even build a nuclear weapon if they want to."
Iran's IRIB state broadcaster claimed its stockpiles of enriched uranium were "evacuated" from all threes sites prior to the U.S. strikes, another assertion not independently verified.
Russian Security Council deputy chairman of Dmitry Medvedev also said Iran's critical nuclear infrastructure appeared to be unaffected or to have sustained only minor damage.
"The enrichment of nuclear material – and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons – will continue," Medvedev said in a social media thread. "A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads."
Russia is an ally of Tehran's, and Medvedev is a previous Russian president.
Israeli forces could try to enter Iran's nuclear sites in a sensitive operation and make a determination for itself and the United States, said Ledeen, the first-term Trump defense official. But an official assessment will have to be conducted by the IAEA, which says it can not go in until the conflict ends, for the international community to accept it.
"I hope it is the end, so IAEA can get their inspectors in there sooner rather than later," Ledeen said. "You also don't want loose material getting into the wrong hands."
Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump says Iran's nuclear sites were 'obliterated.' Were they?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
8 minutes ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court lets Trump administration resume deportations to third countries without notice
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a lower court order that prevented the Trump administration from deporting migrants to countries that are not their places of origin without first giving them the chance to raise fears of torture, persecution or death. The order from the high court is a victory for the Trump administration, which has faced recent setbacks from the justices in its efforts to swiftly deport migrants as part of its crackdown on immigration. The court said in a pair of earlier decisions arising from other emergency appeals that migrants facing deportation under a wartime law must receive notice and an opportunity to challenge their removals in court. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court's decision Monday regarding third country removals. The Supreme Court's latest order came in a court fight over the Trump administration's efforts to swiftly deport some migrants to third countries, or countries other than the ones designated on an order of removal. As part of Mr. Trump's immigration agenda and plans for mass deportations, his administration has approached nations like Costa Rica, Panama and Rwanda about accepting migrants who are not their citizens. The administration has already entered into an arrangement with the government of El Salvador to detain Venezuelan migrants who it claims are gang members, though a "60 Minutes" investigation found most have no apparent criminal records. The migrants have been confined at the notorious Salvadoran prison known as CECOT. Four migrants from Latin America filed a lawsuit in March on behalf of a nationwide class of all people potentially subject to third-country removals and argued they are entitled to notice and an opportunity to contest their removals on the grounds they fear persecution, torture and death. In the weeks after the suit was filed, administration officials were engaged in a simmering showdown with a Boston-based federal judge, who in April found that the government had violated migrants' due process rights and blocked immigration authorities from quickly removing them to third countries unless certain steps are first taken. The judge, Brian Murphy, said the government first had to give the affected migrants written notice of the third country to which they may be deported and a "meaningful opportunity" to raise fears of torture, persecution or death in that country. Third-country deportations challenged in court Since Murphy issued his nationwide injunction in April, immigration lawyers have notified him that a group of migrants from Laos, Vietnam and the Philippines were being prepared to be deported to Libya and Saudi Arabia, though the deportation flights do not appear to have happened. Murphy then concluded last month that the Trump administration violated his order when it attempted to swiftly deport a group of men with criminal histories to war-torn South Sudan with less than 24 hours notice and no chance for them to raise fear-based claims. Murphy halted the deportations to South Sudan, and the men are being held at a U.S. naval base in nearby Djibouti, a small country on the Horn of Africa. The judge said federal immigration authorities must give six of the deportees "reasonable fear" interviews to determine whether they are at risk of persecution or torture. Murphy left it up to the Department of Homeland Security to either conduct the interviews within the U.S. or abroad, but said the department had to retain "custody and control" over the men. A U.S. immigration official revealed in a June 4 filing that the migrants are being held in a conference room in a converted shipping container on the naval base and are guarded by 11 ICE officers. The official, Mellissa Harper, described in an affidavit the conditions facing the migrants and the immigration authorities, who she said have felt ill since arriving in Djibouti, which uses burn pits to dispose of trash and human waste. The ICE officers were unable to take anti-malaria medication for up to 72 hours before arriving in Djibouti and have experienced coughing, difficulty breathing, fever and achy joint, Harper said. They were also warned by defense officials that they were in "imminent danger" of rocket attacks from terrorist groups in Yemen, and the ICE officers do not have body armor or other gear to put on in case of an attack, she said. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court last month to pause Murphy's injunction, which Solicitor General D. John Sauer said was thwarting the administration's attempts to deport what it describes as the "worst of the worst illegal aliens." "Those judicially created procedures are currently wreaking havoc on the third-country removal process," he wrote in a filing. "In addition to usurping the executive's authority over immigration policy, the injunction disrupts sensitive diplomatic, foreign-policy, and national-security efforts." He said Murphy's injunction created a "diplomatic and logistical morass." But lawyers for the migrants at risk of deportation to third countries said the criteria laid out in the lower court's injunction are mandated by federal law and regulations, U.S. treaty obligations and the Constitution. The order, they said, "simply requires defendants to comply with the law when carrying them out." The immigration lawyers said over the past weeks, the Trump administration "repeatedly sought to remove people as a punitive measure, to some of the most dangerous places on the planet, and with only hours' notice." Mr. Trump has overseen a sweeping immigration crackdown since he returned to the White House for a second term. The president's administration has since moved to end a Temporary Protected Status program that shielded 350,000 Venezuelan migrants from the threat of deportation and to revoke the legal status of roughly 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The Supreme Court has allowed him to move forward with terminating both of those programs while legal proceedings continue. Mr. Trump also has sought to use the wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans who his administration claims are members of the gang Tren de Aragua, though several courts have ruled that the president cannot use the law to detain or remove certain migrants.
Washington Post
10 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Turmoil will come out of Iran — but what kind?
In today's edition: Over the weekend, in the wake of U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, the Editorial Board tried to sort out what might come next. It wrote that 'Iran likely retains some ability to strike at U.S. targets in the region, particularly the 40,000 American forces stationed in various Middle Eastern countries.'
Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
Supreme Court rules on Trump's third-country deportations, in major test for president
The Supreme Court on Monday granted the Trump administration's request to stay a lower court injunction blocking them from deporting individuals to third countries without prior notice, voting 6-3 to allow the administration to proceed. At issue was a group of migrants challenging their removals to third countries, or countries that were not their country of origin. Lawyers for a group of immigrants in the U.S. had urged the Supreme Court earlier this month to leave in place a ruling from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who previously ordered the Trump administration to keep in U.S. custody all migrants slated for deportation to a country not "explicitly" named in their removal orders – known as a third-country deportation. Murphy, a federal judge in Boston, presided over a class-action lawsuit from migrants who are challenging deportations to third countries, including South Sudan, El Salvador and other countries, including Costa Rica, Guatemala and others that the administration has reportedly eyed in its ongoing wave of deportations. Murphy ruled that migrants must remain in U.S. custody until they can have the opportunity to conduct a "reasonable fear interview," or the chance to explain to U.S. officials any fear of persecution or torture should they be released into the country. Murphy stressed his order does not bar Trump "from executing removal orders to third countries." Instead, he emphasized in an earlier order, "it simply requires" the government "to comply with the law when carrying" out such removals under the U.S. Constitution and the Trump administration's wave of eleventh-hour removals and deportations. In appealing the case to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Judge Murphy's ruling had blocked them from removing "some of the worst of the worst illegal aliens," including a class of migrants sent to South Sudan earlier this year without due process or notice. He reiterated in a separate order that the migrants remain in U.S. custody at a military base in Djibouti until each of them could be given a "reasonable fear interview," or a chance to explain to U.S. officials any fear of persecution or torture, should they be released into South Sudanese custody. The Supreme Court update comes after a flurry of lower court challenges aimed at blocking Trump's immigration crackdown in his second White House term. U.S. judges have repeatedly ruled that the Trump administration has violated due process by failing to notify the migrants of their imminent removals, or afford them any opportunity to challenge their deportations in court – a view reiterated, albeit narrowly, by the Supreme Court four separate times since Trump took office. White House officials, meanwhile, have blasted so-called "activist" judges as attempting to enact a political agenda, and have repeatedly rejected the notion that illegal immigrants are not entitled to due process. This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.
