Trump says damage from Iran strikes severe despite ‘inconclusive' intelligence
The US Defence Intelligence Agency assessed that the strikes had set back Iran's nuclear programme by just a few months. PHOTO: AFP
Follow our live coverage here.
– US President Donald Trump said on June 25 that the damage to Iranian nuclear sites from missile strikes over the weekend was severe, though he also acknowledged that the available intelligence on the matter was inconclusive.
His comments followed reports by Reuters and other media outlets on June 24 revealing that the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) had assessed that the strikes had set back Iran's nuclear programme by just a few months, despite administration officials saying the programme had been obliterated.
'The intelligence was very inconclusive,' Mr Trump told reporters before joining a Nato summit in The Hague.
'The intelligence says we don't know. It could've been very severe. That's what the intelligence suggests.'
Later, during the same round of comments, he argued that Iran's nuclear deal had been set back 'basically decades, because I don't think they'll ever do it again'.
Mr Trump was sitting alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, who both also cast doubt on the reliability of the DIA assessment.
Mr Rubio said the US was opening an investigation into the leak of the DIA report. He also suggested the report's contents had been misrepresented in the media. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
24 minutes ago
- Business Times
A changed Middle East balance of power
ON OCT 6, 2023, it seemed as though the United States and its allies were about to win the day in the Middle East and that the anti-American Iran regime was facing a major geo-strategic blow. The expectation was that Saudi Arabia and Israel, America's two partners in the region and long-time foes of the Islamic Republic, were about to normalise diplomatic relations. The conventional wisdom in Washington and Middle Eastern capitals at that time was that the ensuing Saudi-Israeli detente would create the conditions for the formation of a new regional bloc that would include the pro-Western moderate Arab states and Israel. If that would have happened, the new bloc with US support would be able to contain Teheran and place constraints on its expansionist policies in the region as well as its plans to acquire military nuclear capability. But on Oct 7, one of Iran's regional partners, the Gaza-based Islamist Hamas, launched an attack on Israel and delivered a blow to the American strategy. Teheran had given its proxy the green light whose goal was to sabotage the Saudi-Israel detente. The attack, including the taking of Israeli hostages by Hamas, placed Israel on the defensive and led it to launch a counter-attack that has evolved into the major war between the Israelis and the forces of the Islamist Hamas. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Joining Hamas in the attack on Israel from the north was another member of the pro-Iran regional axis – the Shiite group Hezbollah – that bombed Israeli targets, joined later on by Shiite militias in Iraq and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The pro-Iran axis seemed to be on the move, changing the regional balance of power in favour of Teheran and sabotaging the plans to normalise diplomatic relations between Riyadh and Jerusalem. But the Israeli military response proved to be more than effective. With American support, the Israelis delivered a blow to Hamas, devastated its centres of power in Gaza and killed some of its top leaders. Similarly, Israel struck the pro-Iran Hezbollah in Lebanon, paralysed its military operations there, and like in the case of Hamas, killed its major leaders. The 'ring of fire' that Iran placed around Israel was collapsing. Things had gotten worse for the Iranians when another of their key allies, Syria's leader Bashar al Assad, was overthrown from power in December 2024. Another of Iran's surrogates ended up hitting the dust. The election of Donald Trump as US president was another piece of bad news for the Iranians. During his first term in office, President Trump embraced a pro-Israel agenda, abrogated the nuclear deal with the Iranians, and killed one of their military leaders, Qasem Soleimani. Yet, President Trump expressed a willingness to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Iran with the goal of ending its military nuclear build-up, including ending the enrichment of uranium. The Iranians calculated that post-Iraq war, the Americans would hesitate to get embroiled in yet another battle in the Middle East and would prefer to reach a diplomatic compromise with Iran. But it seemed that the negotiations with Iran were stalling, with Trump insisting that under no condition would he allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear bomb. For all practical matters, the US president was giving Iran an ultimatum and a deadline to give up its uranium enrichment programme or else. Meanwhile, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was warning that based on Israeli intelligence, Iran was continuing to enrich its uranium and could acquire military nuclear capability within a short time. And Netanyahu, arguing that Israel needed to prevent Iran from going nuclear, launched a massive attack against the Iranians on June 13, 2025. His move amounted to a huge military and diplomatic bet. First, that the Israeli military operations would succeed in destroying Iran's major nuclear sites. And secondly, that the Americans would give Israel the green light to launch the attack. Netanyahu seemed to have won the two bets. The Israeli military operation was swift and overwhelming, and President Trump okayed the Israeli attack. In fact, the president, impressed by the Israeli military wins, was swept away in the momentum of victories, providing the Israelis with an opportunity to achieve their goal of getting the Americans to join them in the military operation in Iran. Seen in this light, Trump's decision to order a US military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities marked a clear display of American-Israeli military cooperation against Iran. He made the decision despite the major risks abroad and at home, where his political coalition was divided over the wisdom of entangling the US in another Middle East war, including the possibility of an Iranian military retaliation, which among other things could have led to a surge in the price of oil. Iran did fire 14 ballistic missiles at US troops in Qatar on Monday and announced that it destroyed the American base in retaliation for the US strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. But the American base was already evacuated and in fact, Iran gave advance notice that the attacks were coming. President Trump mocked it as 'a very weak response', adding that Iran 'had gotten it all out of their 'system' '. Which they probably did. As a show of Iranian power or resolve, the attack failed, with Iran strongly signalling that it didn't want to fight the US, recognising that the Iranian regime risks its own survival. And after Israel aggressively targeted Iran's missile launchers and the regime's institutions, the Iranians have agreed to a ceasefire deal with the Israelis. Trump announced that Israel and Iran and Israel had agreed to a 'Complete and Total CEASEFIRE' within 24 hours and end what he called the '12-day war'. He now says that he wants 'Peace and Harmony', not a ground invasion or occupation of Iran. The bottom line is that Iran has lost its nuclear enrichment and weaponisation facilities, its leading military chiefs and nuclear scientists, much of its missile production and most of its regional proxies. The end result is the emergence of a new balance of power in the Middle East secured by an American-Israeli military and diplomatic partnership. Washington is now in a position to resuscitate the plan for normalising the Saudi and Israeli relationship, and forming an Arab-Israeli strategic bloc, and in the process to resolve the Palestinian problem and to establish an independent Palestinian state that would live side-by-side with Israel. Would the new balance of power survive? Much would depend on the Iranian and Israeli conduct and the ability of the US to secure the current ceasefire and ensure that neither Teheran nor Jerusalem would violate it. And any stable balance of power would probably require the US to put pressure on its partner, Israel, to end the war in Gaza and accept the idea of Palestinian self-determination.
CNA
28 minutes ago
- CNA
Trump calls strikes on Iran severe despite "inconclusive" intelligence
US President Donald Trump is doubling down on claims of "total obliteration" to Iranian nuclear sites as he meets with leaders of the NATO bloc. The defence alliance is wrapping up two days of talks on boosting defence spending, centred on Mr Trump's demand for the bloc to do more. Ross Cullen reports from The Hague.
Business Times
38 minutes ago
- Business Times
Nato summit commits to higher spending and collective defence
[THE HAGUE] Nato leaders on Wednesday (Jun 25) backed a big increase in defence spending and restated their commitment to defend each other from attack after a brief summit tailor-made for US President Donald Trump. In a short statement, Nato endorsed a higher defence spending goal of 5 per cent of GDP by 2035 – a response to a demand by Trump and to Europeans' fears that Russia poses a growing threat to their security following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. 'We reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defence as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – that an attack on one is an attack on all,' the statement said, after Trump had sparked concern on Tuesday by saying there were 'numerous definitions' of the clause. But just before the summit opened, Trump had said of fellow Nato members: 'We're with them all the way.' The 32-nation alliance for its part heeded a call by Trump for other countries to step up their spending on defence to reduce Nato's reliance on the US. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged that it was not easy for European countries and Canada to find the extra money, but said it was vital to do so. 'There is absolute conviction with my colleagues at the table that, given this threat from the Russians, given the international security situation, there is no alternative,' the former Dutch prime minister told reporters in his home city of The Hague. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up The new spending target – to be achieved over the next 10 years – is a jump worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the current goal of 2 per cent of GDP, although it will be measured differently. Countries would spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on core defence – such as troops and weapons – and 1.5 per cent on broader defence-related measures such as cybersecurity, protecting pipelines and adapting roads and bridges to handle heavy military vehicles. All Nato members have backed a statement enshrining the target, although Spain declared it does not need to meet the goal and can meet its commitments by spending much less. Rutte disputes that but accepted a diplomatic fudge with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez as part of his efforts to give Trump a diplomatic victory and make the summit go smoothly. Spain said on Wednesday that it did not expect its stance to have any repercussions. Rutte has kept the summit and its final statement short and focused on the spending pledge to try to avert any friction with Trump. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy had to settle for attending the pre-summit dinner on Tuesday evening rather than the main meeting on Wednesday, although he was set to meet Trump separately. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban diluted the display of unity when he told reporters that Nato had no business in Ukraine and that Russia was not strong enough to represent a real threat to Nato. The Kremlin has accused Nato of being on a path of rampant militarisation and portraying Russia as a 'fiend of hell' in order to justify its big increase in defence spending. REUTERS
