New U.S. assessment finds American strikes destroyed only one of three Iranian nuclear sites
The assessment, part of the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to determine the status of Iran's nuclear program since the facilities were struck, was briefed to some U.S. lawmakers, Defense Department officials and allied countries in recent days, four of those people said.
NBC News has also learned that U.S. Central Command had developed a much more comprehensive plan to strike Iran that would have involved hitting three additional sites in an operation that would have stretched for several weeks instead of a single night, according to a current U.S. official and two former U.S. officials.
President Donald Trump was briefed on that plan, but it was rejected because it was at odds with his foreign policy instincts to extract the United States from conflicts abroad, not dig deeper into them, as well as the possibility of a high number of casualties on both sides, one of the current officials and one of the former officials said.
'We were willing to go all the way in our options, but the president did not want to,' one of the sources with knowledge of the plan said.
In a speech in the hours after they took place, Trump called the strikes he directed 'a spectacular military success' and said, 'Iran's key enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.'
The reality as gleaned through intelligence so far appears to be more nuanced. And if the early findings about the damage inflicted to Iran's nuclear program hold up as more intelligence comes in, the United States could find itself back in a conflict there.
There have been discussions within both the American and Israeli governments about whether additional strikes on the two less-damaged facilities could be necessary if Iran does not soon agree to restart negotiations with the Trump administration on a nuclear deal or if there are signs Iran is trying to rebuild at those locations, one of the current officials and one of the former officials said. Iran has long said its nuclear program is purely for peaceful, civilian purposes.
The recent assessment is a snapshot of the damage U.S. strikes inflicted amid an intelligence-gathering process that administration officials have said is expected to continue for months. Assessments of Iran's nuclear program after the U.S. strikes are expected to change over time, and according to two of the current officials, as the process progresses, the findings suggest more damage than previous assessments revealed. That assessment remains for now the current thinking on the impact of the strikes, officials said.
'As the President has said and experts have verified, Operation Midnight Hammer totally obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities,' White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told NBC News in a statement. 'America and the world are safer, thanks to his decisive action.'
In a statement of his own, chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said: 'The credibility of the Fake News Media is similar to that of the current state of the Iranian nuclear facilities: destroyed, in the dirt, and will take years to recover. President Trump was clear and the American people understand: Iran's nuclear facilities in Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz were completely and totally obliterated. There is no doubt about that.'
He added, 'Operation Midnight Hammer was a significant blow to Iran's nuclear capabilities thanks to the decisive action of President Trump and the bravery of every man and woman in uniform who supported this mission.'
Destruction and deterrence
The U.S. strikes targeted three enrichment sites in Iran: Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. U.S. officials believe the attack on Fordo, which has long been viewed as a critical component of Iran's nuclear ambitions, was successful in setting back Iranian enrichment capabilities at that site by as much as two years, according to two of the current officials.
Much of the administration's public messaging about the strikes has focused on Fordo. In a Pentagon briefing they held in response to reporting on an initial Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that concluded that Iran's nuclear program had been set back by only three to six months, for instance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, talked extensively about the strike at Fordo but not the strikes at Natanz and Isfahan.
U.S. officials knew before the airstrikes that Iran had structures and enriched uranium at Natanz and Isfahan that were likely to be beyond the reach of even America's 30,000-pound GBU-57 'bunker buster' bombs, three of the sources said. Those bombs, which had never been used in combat before the strikes, were designed with the deeply buried facilities carved into the side of a mountain at Fordo in mind.
As early as 2023, though, there were indications that Iran was digging tunnels at Natanz that were below where the GBU-57 could reach. There are also tunnels deep underground at Isfahan. The United States hit surface targets at Isfahan with Tomahawk missiles and did not drop GBU-57s there, but it did use them at Natanz.
A U.S. official pointed NBC News to a closed-door briefing conducted in late June by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who told lawmakers that Iran's nuclear program was 'severely damaged' and that several key nuclear facilities were 'completely destroyed,' according to an administration official's description of the briefing. Ratcliffe said the only metal conversion facility at Natanz, required for nuclear enrichment, was destroyed to the point that it would take 'years to rebuild,' according to the official, who was authorized to describe some contents of the classified briefing.
Ratcliffe also said that the intelligence community believes the strikes buried the vast majority of enriched uranium at Isfahan and Fordo and that thus it would be extremely difficult for the Iranians to extract it to resume enrichment, according to the official. The United States has not seen indications that Iran is trying to dig out the facilities, two officials said.
As NBC News has reported, the Israeli government believes at least some of Iran's highly enriched uranium remains intact but buried beneath the Isfahan facility, according to a senior Israeli government official who briefed reporters in Washington last week. The official said, however, that Israel considers the material effectively unreachable, because it is watching and will conduct new strikes if it believes Iran is trying to dig up the uranium. The official also said Israel believes Iran's nuclear program has been set back by up to two years.
Similarly, even if the targeted Iranian nuclear sites were not completely destroyed, U.S. officials and Republican advocates of the operation believe it was a success because it has changed the strategic equation for Iran. From their point of view, the regime in Tehran now faces a credible threat of more airstrikes if Israel and the United States believe it is trying to revive clandestine nuclear work.
Asked late last month whether he would consider bombing Iran again if intelligence reports concluded Iran can enrich uranium at a level that concerns him, Trump said: 'Sure. Without question. Absolutely.'
Iran's air defenses have been largely destroyed, making it all but impossible for Iran to defend against further strikes on facilities in the future, the U.S. official said.
'It was made clear that Iran no longer has any more [air defenses], so the idea that they can easily rebuild anything is ludicrous,' the official said.
The 'all-in' plan
Beginning during the Biden administration, as early as last fall and into this spring, Army Gen. Erik Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command, had developed a plan to go 'all-in' on striking Iran, according to a current U.S. official and two former officials. That option was designed to 'truly decimate' Iran's nuclear capabilities, in the words of one of the former officials.
Under the plan, the United States would have hit six sites. The thinking was that the six sites would have to be hit repeatedly to inflict the kind of damage necessary to completely end the program, people familiar with the thinking said. The plan would also have involved targeting more of Iran's air defense and ballistic missile capabilities, and planners projected it could result in a high number of Iranian casualties. U.S. officials expected that if that were to take place, Iran would target American positions, for example in Iraq and Syria, a person familiar with the plan said.
'It would be a protracted air campaign,' the person said.
Some Trump administration officials believed a deeper offensive option against Iran was a viable policy, two of the former officials said.
Trump was briefed on the so-called all-in plan, but it was rejected ultimately because it would have required a sustained period of conflict.
The history
During his first term, in 2018, Trump pulled the United States out of a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers that was negotiated during the Obama administration. The agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, imposed strict limits on Iran's nuclear program in return for an easing of economic sanctions.
Under the deal, Iran was a year away from obtaining enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb. After Trump withdrew from the accord and reimposed sanctions, Iran flouted restrictions on its uranium enrichment. Before the June airstrikes, the regime had enough fissile material for about nine to 10 bombs, according to U.S. officials and United Nations inspectors.
Trump has since sought a new agreement with Iran that would block it from developing nuclear weapons. Indirect talks between U.S. and Iranian officials failed to clinch a deal before Israel launched airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Iran has long denied that it wants to build a nuclear weapon, a position its foreign minister reiterated in an interview with NBC News the day before the U.S. strikes.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Labour announce plans to build £38bn Sizewell C nuclear plant
The government has announced the construction of the Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk will cost around £38 billion, with it being the biggest equity shareholder in the project. Energy secretary Ed Miliband has signed off on the final investment decision for the development, with the UK government investing a 44.9 per cent stake. New Sizewell C investors include La Caisse with 20 per cent, Centrica with 15 per cent, and Amber Infrastructure with an initial 7.6 per cent. It comes alongside French energy giant EDF announcing earlier this month it was taking a 12.5 per cent stake – lower than its previously stated 16.2 per cent ownership. A general view of main generator 1, at the Sizewell nuclear power plant in Suffolk (James Manning/PA) (PA Archive) The nuclear plant is expected to deliver clean power to the equivalent of six million homes and help save £2bn a year in electricity savings once operational. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, said the multibillion-pound investment was 'a powerful endorsement of the UK as the best place to do business and as a global hub for nuclear energy'. 'Delivering next generation, publicly owned clean power is vital to our energy security and growth, which is why we backed Sizewell C. This investment will create thousands of good quality jobs and boost the local economy as we deliver on our plan for change,' she said. She later said that the Sizewell C announcement would reduce the UK's reliance on 'foreign dictators' for energy. 'This is something that politicians have spoken about for years and today we are actually delivering,' she told reporters. 'This is a public-private consortium. We as a Government are putting in money but that means that government – taxpayers – will get a return on that investment. The government's statement said the deal ended an 'era of dithering and delay' to give Sizewell C the go-ahead, which will support 10,000 jobs once operational. Mr Miliband said: 'It is time to do big things and build big projects in this country again- and today we announce an investment that will provide clean, homegrown power to millions of homes for generations to come. 'This government is making the investment needed to deliver a new golden age of nuclear, so we can end delays and free us from the ravages of the global fossil fuel markets to bring bills down for good.' Chris O'Shea, Centrica's chief executive, said Sizewell C was a 'compelling investment for our shareholders and the country as a whole'. 'This isn't just an investment in a new power station – it's an investment in Britain's energy independence, our net zero journey, and thousands of high-quality jobs across the country,' he added.

USA Today
15 minutes ago
- USA Today
Putin stalls. Trump changes his mind. Ukraine targets Moscow. Latest on the war.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is stalling over a ceasefire. The White House has changed its mind about sending weapons to Ukraine. A major Ukrainian drone attack on Russia sowed chaos at airports serving Moscow. Russia's summer offensive in Ukraine has seen Moscow make its largest territorial gains in Ukraine since the start of the year, according to the Ukrainian open-source DeepState website and estimates by the Institute for the Study of War, a think tank in Washington, D.C., that specializes in military affairs and warfare. In the past month, Russian military units concentrated in Ukraine's Sumy region, which borders Russia in the northeast, the eastern cities of Pokrovsk and Kostyantynivka, and Zaporizhzhia in the south, have gained about 200 square miles, according to data from the war study institute. That's an area a little larger than the size of Atlanta. Does that mean Russia is prevailing? Not really. It's not that simple. Here's the latest on Russia's war in Ukraine. Why is Russia gaining ground in Ukraine? Ukraine has liberated about 7% of the territory Russia occupied before and after Moscow's full-scale invasion in February 2022, according to Ukrainian estimates and DeepState. That leaves about 19% still in Russian hands. Moscow still controls Crimea, which it annexed in 2014, and about two-thirds of Ukraine's Donetsk region, a vast and heavily industrialized region which remains the center of the ground war. Russia has long had the upper hand in the war in terms of military manpower, but analysts say Moscow has suffered more casualties, and its loss of equipment − vehicles, artillery, tanks − also has been at a higher rate than Ukraine's. Though Russia has been advancing in recent months, those gains have been relatively slow and small, amounting to less than 0.1% of Ukraine's territory in July, according to a manual calculation. Still, one reason Russia may have been able to make progress, according to the war study institute, is that Russia has substantially increased its use of drone attacks, and missiles and shells, on Ukraine. These grew at an average monthly rate of 31% in June and July. Russia has been using drones to pin down Ukrainian troops. No, then yes, to more American weapons for Ukraine. Why? President Donald Trump began his second term promising to end the war in Ukraine in his first 24 hours in office. He quickly halted the flow of military aid to Kyiv and temporarily stopped sharing some intelligence. He also cast blame on Ukraine for the war, giving President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a public dressing down in the Oval Office when he tried to push back on that assertion and counter Trump by saying Putin was not a reliable negotiator. Since then, the leaders have revised their stances and welcomed more nuance in their discussions. The war is still raging. Trump has appeared to change his tune on Ukraine and Putin as the Russian leader has pushed forward with drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities and repeatedly rebuffed Trump's attempts to broker a ceasefire. In early July, Trump said he would resume shipping arms to Ukraine. He also announced a new arrangement with NATO that will see the military alliance transfer advanced U.S.-made air defense systems to Kyiv. He also altered his attitude about the Russian leader. "He's very nice to us all the time," Trump said July 9. "But it turns out to be meaningless." What about the diplomacy? Two rounds of Trump-brokered ceasefire talks between Ukraine and Russia have come to nothing. As the relationship between Putin and Trump has soured, a broad coalition of U.S. lawmakers has lined up ready to place new aggressive sanctions on Russia. Trump also has threatened "severe" economic penalties on Moscow if it does not commit to a ceasefire by early September. The Kremlin has dismissed this as "bluster." The Russian government has suggested that Trump and Putin could meet in Beijing in September when Russia's leader is there for the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. Moscow said it had not heard whether Trump plans to attend. The White House has not commented. But there's little doubt Moscow, for now, is on the back foot geopolitically, and perhaps even militarily. Zelenskyy and French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot announced in Kyiv a series of manufacturing deals with French companies on July 21 that will launch drone production in Ukraine. Overnight, Russia launched its latest barrage of drones and missiles at Kyiv. But Ukraine is also fighting back in ways increasingly difficult for Moscow to ignore. Videos published by Russian media showed people sleeping on the floor of Sheremetyevo, Russia's busiest airport, amid long lines and canceled flights after Ukraine bombarded it with drones.


UPI
16 minutes ago
- UPI
DOJ drops challenge to Tennessee's gender care ban for minors
Participants walk up Market Street in the 55th annual San Francisco Pride Parade in San Francisco on Sunday, June 29, 2025. On Monday, the Justice Department dropped a lawsuit challenging Tennessee's ban on minors receiving gender-affirming medical care. File Photo by Terry Schmitt/UPI | License Photo July 22 (UPI) -- The Justice Department has dismissed a Biden-era lawsuit challenging Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for minors, as the Trump administration continues to attack the rights and medical care of transgender Americans. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that her department's Civil Rights Division dismissed the lawsuit in a statement Monday that said the Justice Department "does not believe challenging Tennessee's law serves the public interest." Gender-affirming care includes a range of therapies, including psychological, behavioral and medical interventions, with surgeries for minors being exceedingly rare. According to a recent Harvard study, cisgender minors and adults were far more likely to undergo analogous gender-affirming surgeries than their transgender counterparts. Every major American medical association supports gender-affirming care for both adults and minors, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, the largest national medical association. Despite the support of the medical community and evidence of its efficacy, gender-affirming care and this marginalized community continue to be targeted by conservatives and Republicans with legislation. Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1 in March 2023 to prohibit healthcare professionals from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria, which attracted a lawsuit from the Justice Department under President Joe Biden, arguing the law violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as all other minors continued to have access to the same procedures and treatments. The conservative movement targeting the healthcare of transgender minors has since gained a supporter in the White House with the re-election of President Donald Trump. Since returning to power, Trump has implemented an agenda targeting transgender Americans, including directing the federal government to recognize only two sexes determined at "conception," restricting gender-affirming care for youth and banning transgender Americans from the military. Last month, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against the Biden administration's complaint to overturn the Tennessee law. The ruling fell along ideological lines, with the conservative justices voting for the law to stand. The liberal justices dissented. "By retreating from meaningful review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent. "Tennessee's ban applies no matter what a minor's parents and doctors think, with no regard for the severity of the minor's mental health conditions or the extent to which treatment is medically necessary for an individual child." Bondi on Monday said the Supreme Court made "the right decision." Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division said that by dismissing the lawsuit, they "undid one of the injustices the Biden administration inflicted upon the country."