US strikes Iran: How legendary 88-year-old reporter Seymour Hersh scooped that Donald Trump would attack Iranian nuclear sites

Time of India

22-06-2025

In an age where news breaks on social media feeds faster than newsroom alerts, it wasn't CNN, BBC or The New York Times that first reported the United States' military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
It was Seymour Hersh.
Yes, that Seymour Hersh—the 88-year-old Pulitzer-winning investigative reporter, best known for uncovering the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and the Abu Ghraib prison abuses in Iraq. And now, in the summer of 2025, the veteran journalist has done it again—beating major media outlets and intelligence briefings by publishing details of the Trump administration's plan to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, nearly 48 hours before the world knew it had actually happened.
The Scoop
On June 19, Hersh published a detailed report via his Substack newsletter, claiming that US B-2 bombers and naval platforms were preparing a "coordinated assault" on Iran's underground nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The piece cited unnamed sources in the intelligence community who warned that the operation was imminent and being conducted with minimal oversight from Congress or America's NATO allies.
At the time, most dismissed it as another speculative post from a journalist long estranged from the legacy media. But by June 22, when US President Donald Trump went on record confirming the strikes—calling the targets 'obliterated'—Hersh had already been vindicated.
The Attack
The strikes, launched late on June 21, targeted three high-profile Iranian nuclear facilities. While initial reports from state media in Iran downplayed the damage, satellite imagery and eyewitness accounts suggested precision airstrikes had indeed hit deep underground bunkers at Fordow and Natanz, as well as key infrastructure in Isfahan.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Yet despite the intensity of the operation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported no significant radiation spikes, prompting speculation that either:
Iran had preemptively moved or buried sensitive material, or
The sites were largely non-operational or decoy facilities.
Either way, it challenged Trump's claim of having 'wiped out' Iran's nuclear capability.
Déjà Vu: From Nord Stream to Natanz
Hersh's report bore eerie similarities to his controversial 2023 scoop on the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, which he attributed to US covert operations.
At the time, mainstream outlets largely ignored the piece, but subsequent leaks from German and Nordic investigations lent circumstantial credibility to his claims.
The Iran story followed a similar arc: initial media silence, public disbelief, and then abrupt confirmation—except this time, the stakes involved possible nuclear escalation in the Middle East.
The Media Gap
Hersh's scoop once again spotlights the widening chasm between traditional journalism and independent reporting.
A 2023 study by the Reuters Institute found that 62% of US adults now rely on social media, newsletters, and independent platforms for breaking news—often citing speed, authenticity, and ideological distrust of legacy media.
Hersh, for his part, has long been critical of what he calls the 'lapdog press'—journalists too embedded in officialdom to question military narratives or dig beneath the surface. His latest work only reinforces that critique.
Even defenders of legacy media recognize the challenge. In late 2024, Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, penned a stirring op‑ed titled 'The hard truth: Americans don't trust the news media,' in which he conceded:
'Reality is an undefeated champion. … We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement.'
Bezos's admission—calling out both accuracy and credibility—served as a tacit acknowledgment that even powerful legacy outlets are circling back to the same core demand: fearless, truthful reporting, just as Hersh delivers time and again.
What Next?
Iran, for now, has not confirmed the full extent of the damage but has vowed to retaliate 'at a time and place of its choosing.' Meanwhile, in Washington, Trump faces minimal political backlash, with key GOP figures framing the strike as a 'preemptive blow' to prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb.
But the bigger story might be this: Seymour Hersh, nearly nine decades old, once again scooped the world. In an era of TikTok pundits and algorithm-fed outrage, his dogged reliance on old-school sourcing—combined with new-age platforms like Substack—has given him a second act few journalists ever get.
Legacy vs Longevity
While major networks scrambled to confirm what Hersh had already written, one truth remained clear: in the information war, experience still matters. Hersh's longevity in investigative reporting—not in spite of, but because of his outsider status—continues to disrupt the cosy, slow-moving machinery of legacy media. The attack on Iran may or may not spark a wider conflict. But Hersh's scoop has already ignited a different kind of reckoning—one about where we get our news, and who we still trust to tell us the truth.