
Donald Trump sends U.S. military to war against the media over Iran strike doubts
The United States military has carried out some of the most complex and difficult missions in the history of warfare, from the storming of the beaches of Normandy to the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
But its latest operation — convincing the American media that its mission to destroy Iran's nuclear capability was a success — is proving to be a challenging one.
Despite President Donald Trump claiming that the attack had left the facilities "completely and totally obliterated,' questions have lingered about the efficacy of Operation Midnight Hammer.
Those questions were given fuel by a leaked initial assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency that suggested the strikes did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program and likely only set it back by months.
To discredit what the White House called a 'flat-out wrong' assessment by 'a low-level loser in the intelligence community,' Trump dispatched the might of the U.S. military's top brass — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Dan Caine, to set the media straight.
In the early morning press conference, Hegseth played the role of a furious school teacher scolding the Pentagon press corps for not praising the mission or those who carried it out sufficiently, and for focusing too much on the potential downsides — namely the possibility that the strikes did not sufficiently damage Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon while simultaneously making it more likely that it builds one in secret.
'It's like in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump because you want him not to be successful so bad you have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes,' Hegeth said. 'You have to hope maybe they weren't effective, maybe the way the Trump administration is representing them isn't true.'
Hegseth seemed to insist that wanting to know if Iran could build a nuke was simply unpatriotic.
"There are so many aspects of what our brave men and women did, that because of the hatred of this press corps, are undermined because you people are trying to leak and spin that it wasn't successful,' he went on.
Hegseth appeared angry that the journalists sent to cover the Pentagon spent too much time 'hunting for scandals' and not enough time praising the bravery of the bomber pilots who carried out this mission — a great irony considering he works for a president who won the White House in part by lambasting the media and political establishment for lying to the American public about the intelligence that led to the Iraq War.
'How many stories have been written about how hard it is to, I don't know, fly a plane for 36 hours. Has MSNBC done that story? Has Fox?' he asked incredulously, before calling on the press to 'wave an American flag' and 'be proud of what we accomplished.'
The presentation from Hegseth and Caine at times felt like an extended deleted scene from Top Gun 3, a bewildering barrage of patriotic imagery — flags, bombs, brave pilots and the tears of their families as they returned home from their mission. You could almost hear the faint call of a bald eagle.
Caine's description of the return of the bomber pilots, in particular, was emotive and touching, but did little to answer questions about Iran's nuclear capabilities.
"The jets rejoined into a formation of four airplanes followed by a formation of three, and came up overhead Whiteman [air force base in Missouri] proudly in the traffic pattern, pitching out to land right over the base and landing to the incredible cheers of their families who sacrifice and serve right alongside their family members,' he said.
'There were a lot of flags and a lot of tears. One commander told me this is a moment in the lives of our families that they will never forget," Caine continued.
The general then gave a lengthy tribute to the soldiers who manned the Patriot missile defense system, which shot down a barrage of Iranian missiles fired at U.S. bases in the Middle East in response to the strikes.
'You get orders from your higher headquarters to make sure that your missile batteries are pointed to the north. There are just a few other teammates,' he explained. 'It's hot. You're getting nervous, and you expect an attack outside of those Patriot vehicles. Your hot crew, which is one NCO and four additional soldiers, turns a key and relinquishes control of those missiles to that young lieutenant inside the vehicle, and you wait, you know that you're going to have approximately two minutes, 120 seconds, to either succeed or fail.'
Hegseth and Caine's presentation was clearly ordered by a president who has been outraged at the doubting coverage over his decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. In the days s ince the leaked DIA intelligence report, Trump has fumed on social media at the press for daring to question the mission, calling reporters 'sick' and demanding their firing for 'trying to always make our Country look bad.'
Hegseth noted that the leaked intelligence was merely preliminary, and that subsequent assessments had determined the mission was a resounding success. He cited John Radcliffe, the director of the CIA, and Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, who respectively described the nuclear program as 'severely damaged' and 'destroyed'.
'Time and time again — I can go down the list, those that understand, those that see, those that do proper assessments, recognize that what the United States military did was historic,' he continued.
Caine, for his part, gave an in-depth explanation about the capabilities of the 30,000 pound bombs that were dropped on the Fordow nuclear facility, which has become a focus of the questions.
He told the story of a Defense Threat Reduction Agency officer and a colleague who 'lived and breathed this single target Fordow, a critical element of Iran's covert nuclear weapons program' for more than 15 years.
'He studied the geology. He watched the Iranians dig it out. He watched the construction, the weather, the discarded material, the geology, the construction materials, where the materials came from,' he explained. 'He looked at the vent shaft, the exhaust shaft, the electrical systems, the environmental control systems, every nook, every crater, every piece of equipment going in and every piece of equipment going out. They literally dreamed about this target at night.'
If the press conference was designed to alleviate the anger of the president, it appeared to have worked.
'One of the greatest, most professional, and most 'confirming' News Conferences I have ever seen! The Fake News should fire everyone involved in this Witch Hunt, and apologize to our great warriors, and everyone else!' Trump wrote on Truth Social after it had ended.
But although it may have satisfied Trump, it failed to answer key questions the public have about Iran's nuclear program and its ability to build a bomb. In fact, those legitimate questions were batted away as an annoyance by Hegseth.
Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin tried to ask Hegseth — himself a former Fox News host — whether it was possible that Iran had preemptively moved its highly enriched uranium ahead of the airstrikes.
'Of course, we're watching every single aspect,' he responded. 'But, Jennifer, you've been about the worst. The one who misrepresents the most intentionally what the president says. I'm familiar.'
When another reporter followed up on the question, he said he was "not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be … moved or otherwise," suggesting it would have been destroyed in the strikes.
But that was not the assessment delivered by Vice President JD Vance in the days after the strike, when he acknowledged an estimated 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium — which could eventually be enriched to weapons-grade levels — was still in Iran's hands.
Nor is that the assessment of European intelligence agencies, who, according to a report in the Financial Times, have delivered preliminary reports to their governments that suggest Iran moved its stockpile away from its nuclear facilities before the strikes, leaving it largely intact.
Much like Wile E. Coyote, Trump appears to believe the bombs dropped on the Fordow facility were so large that they couldn't possibly have failed. But a relentless focus on the Fordow nuclear site that was struck by bunker busters has blinded the administration to other lingering questions — other sites, other equipment that would aid Iran in building a bomb, that is potentially still out there. Furthermore, the strikes will only have increased the political will to build a weapon, if it wasn't there before.
After watching the presser from California, Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute, became even more convinced that the mission was a failure.
'I think it's very telling that they don't have answers to what are very simple questions," he told The Independent.
"They can't tell you what happened to the highly enriched uranium, and they have tried a million excuses. They can't, or won't, engage with any of the questions about the facilities or what happened to the equipment,' he said.
Trump has now made it abundantly clear to his intelligence agencies and the U.S. military that he believes the strikes were a resounding success and that anyone who questions that narrative is insubordinate.
That may help Trump battle negative headlines in the short term, but it likely won't help figure out just what capability Iran retained after the strikes.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
24 minutes ago
- Reuters
Following NATO summit, Trump and Europe still at odds over Putin's ambitions
THE HAGUE, June 26 (Reuters) - For U.S. President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin is a man looking for an off-ramp to his bloody three-year assault on Ukraine. But according to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Russian leader may be just getting started. If the alliance does not invest in its defense capabilities, Rutte warned the annual NATO summit on Tuesday, Russia could attack an alliance country within three years. By most measures, this year's NATO summit in The Hague was a success. Member states largely agreed to a U.S. demand to boost defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product. Trump, who once derided the alliance as a "rip-off," said his view had changed, while a budding bromance blossomed between him and Rutte, who compared the U.S. president to a stern "daddy" managing his geopolitical underlings. But the summit, which ended on Wednesday, also highlighted the widening gap between how the U.S. and Europe see the military ambitions of Russia, the bloc's main foil. That is despite some lawmakers in Trump's own Republican Party hardening their rhetoric in recent weeks, arguing that while the president's ambition to negotiate an end to Russia's war in Ukraine is laudable, it is now clear that Putin is not serious about coming to the table. In a Wednesday press conference, Trump conceded that it was "possible" Putin had territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine. But he insisted that the Russian leader - buffeted by manpower and materiel losses - wanted the war to end quickly. "I know one thing: He'd like to settle," Trump said. "He'd like to get out of this thing. It's a mess for him." Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed Trump's view in a sideline interview with Politico, saying the U.S. was holding off on expanding its sanctions against Moscow, in part to keep talks going. "If we did what everybody here wants us to do - and that is come in and crush them with more sanctions - we probably lose our ability to talk to them about the ceasefire," he said. The message from others at the summit was starkly different. A senior NATO official told reporters in a Tuesday briefing that Putin was not in fact interested in a ceasefire - or in engaging in good-faith talks at all. "Regardless of battlefield dynamics, we continue to doubt that Russia has any interest in meaningful negotiations," the official said. Russia's ambitions, the senior official said, go beyond control of "certain territories at their administrative lines," as Rubio put it. Putin is instead bent on imposing his "political will" on neighboring states. Rutte put the Russian threat in existential terms. "If we do not invest now," he said on Tuesday, "we are really at risk that the Russians might try something against NATO territory in three, five or seven years." The U.S. is not the only NATO member with a more optimistic view of Russia. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a longtime Trump ally and critic of European institutions, said Russia was "not strong enough to represent a real threat to NATO." Still, as the alliance's largest contributor and most powerful member, Washington's position is a central preoccupation in most NATO capitals. The White House, asked for comment, referred to Trump's comments at the Wednesday press conference. In response to a request for comment, a separate NATO official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed that there were differing assessments within the alliance, pointing to a NATO declaration on Wednesday which referenced the "long-term threat posed by Russia." The Russian embassy in Washington referred to Thursday comments by Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, who criticized NATO for wasting money on defense. "It seems that only by invoking the fabricated 'Russian threat' will it be possible to explain to ordinary people why their pockets are being emptied once again," she said. The U.S. State Department and the Ukrainian embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment. The lack of a common understanding about Putin's goals will complicate future diplomatic plans to wind down the war, said Philippe Dickinson, the deputy director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council and a former British diplomat. "To reach a peace agreement, it's not just something that Trump and Putin can agree themselves," Dickinson said. "There does need to be European involvement. That needs to mean that there is some sort of sharing of views among allies on what Putin is trying to achieve." European leaders likely have not given up on trying to change Trump's views on Russia, Dickinson said. But they were always unlikely bring up thorny conversations at the NATO summit. The alliance's main goal was to simply get through it without major blowups, he said, an aim that was accomplished. Still, peace came at a cost - the lack of substantive discussion around Ukraine and Russia, he argued, was conspicuous. "The lack of a Russia strategy is a real glaring omission from what the summit could have produced," Dickinson said.


The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Bill Moyers, Lyndon Johnson press chief and celebrated broadcaster, dies at 91
Bill Moyers, the former White House press secretary who became one of television's most honored journalists, masterfully using a visual medium to illuminate a world of ideas, died Thursday at age 91. Moyers died in a New York City hospital, according to longtime friend Tom Johnson, the former chief executive of CNN and an assistant to Moyers during Lyndon B Johnson's administration. Moyers' son William said his father died at Memorial Sloan Kettering in New York after a 'long illness'. Moyers' career ranged from youthful Baptist minister to deputy director of the Peace Corps, from Johnson's press secretary to newspaper publisher, senior news analyst for CBS Evening News and chief correspondent for CBS Reports. But it was for public television that Moyers produced some of TV's most cerebral and provocative series. In hundreds of hours of PBS programs, he proved at home with subjects ranging from government corruption to modern dance, from drug addiction to media consolidation, from religion to environmental abuse. In 1988, Moyers produced The Secret Government about the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, and simultaneously published a book under the same name. Around that time, he galvanized viewers with Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth, a series of six one-hour interviews with the prominent religious scholar. The accompanying book became a bestseller. His televised chats with poet Robert Bly almost single-handedly launched the 1990s Men's Movement, and his 1993 series Healing and the Mind had a profound impact on the medical community and on medical education. In a medium that supposedly abhors 'talking heads' – shots of subject and interviewer talking – Moyers came to specialize in just that. He once explained why: 'The question is, are the talking heads thinking minds and thinking people? Are they interesting to watch? I think the most fascinating production value is the human face.' Demonstrating what someone called 'a soft, probing style' in the native Texas accent he never lost, Moyers was a humanist who investigated the world with a calm, reasoned perspective, whatever the subject. From some quarters, he was blasted as a liberal thanks to his links with Johnson and public television, as well as his no-holds-barred approach to investigative journalism. It was a label he didn't necessarily deny. 'I'm an old-fashion liberal when it comes to being open and being interested in other people's ideas,' he said during a 2004 radio interview. But Moyers preferred to term himself a 'citizen journalist' operating independently, outside the establishment. Public television (and his self-financed production company) gave him free rein to throw 'the conversation of democracy open to all comers,' he said in a 2007 interview with the Associated Press. 'I think my peers in commercial television are talented and devoted journalists,' he said another time, 'but they've chosen to work in a corporate mainstream that trims their talent to fit the corporate nature of American life. And you do not get rewarded for telling the hard truths about America in a profit-seeking environment.' Over the years, Moyers was showered with honors, including more than 30 Emmys, 11 George Foster Peabody awards, three George Polks and, twice, the Alfred I duPont-Columbia University Gold Baton award for career excellence in broadcast journalism. In 1995, he was inducted into the Television Hall of Fame. Born in Hugo, Oklahoma, on 5 June 1934, Billy Don Moyers was the son of a dirt farmer-truck driver who soon moved his family to Marshall, Texas. High school led him into journalism. 'I wanted to play football, but I was too small. But I found that by writing sports in the school newspaper, the players were always waiting around at the newsstand to see what I wrote,' he recalled. He worked for the Marshall News Messenger at age 16. Deciding that Bill Moyers was a more appropriate byline for a sportswriter, he dropped the Y from his name. He graduated from the University of Texas and earned a master's in divinity from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was ordained and preached part time at two churches but later decided his call to the ministry 'was a wrong number.' His relationship with Johnson began when he was in college; he wrote to the thensenator offering to work in his 1954 re-election campaign. Johnson was impressed and hired him for a summer job. He was back in Johnson's employ as a personal assistant in the early 1960s and for two years, he worked at the Peace Corps, eventually becoming deputy director. On the day John F Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Moyers was in Austin helping with the presidential trip. He flew back to Washington on Air Force One with newly sworn-in President Johnson, for whom he held various jobs over the ensuing years, including press secretary. Moyers' stint as presidential press secretary was marked by efforts to mend the deteriorating relationship between Johnson and the media. But the Vietnam war took its toll and Moyers resigned in December 1966. Of his departure from the White House, he wrote later: 'We had become a war government, not a reform government, and there was no creative role left for me under those circumstances.'


Times
35 minutes ago
- Times
British students hoping to study in US warned about online posts
Students applying to US universities should be extremely cautious on social media, experts have warned, amid reports of visas being rejected while immigration officials comb through posts. British sixth-formers accepted by US universities are reporting disruption in applications for student visas, which were suspended and then reinstated by President Trump. One consultant advised British school-leavers to consider starting degrees at branch campuses of American universities if visas were not processed in time. Applicants must now make their social media profiles public and officials have been ordered to scour through content dating back five years, meaning British students' posts from the age of 12 could be scrutinised for possible threats or 'hostile attitudes'. Education and legal experts said it reinforced the need for teenagers to be extremely cautious about what they post on social media. • I'm a Brit at Harvard — what Trump's doing is scary and dehumanising The US State Department says foreign nationals applying for student and exchange visitor visas should make their social media profiles public so it can comprehensively vet and identify visa applicants who 'pose a threat to US national security'. A federal judge has temporarily delayed issuing a ruling on whether the Trump administration can block international students bound for Harvard University from entering the country. Peter Adediran, digital media rights Solicitor at PAIL Solicitors, said that some students would self-censor or even not have social media, as a result. The measures risked infringing upon the right to freedom of speech enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and might also conflict with the Human Rights Act, he said. 'Students, being aware that sharing or being monitored for politically sensitive content may complicate their visa applications, are either not going to have social media accounts or will sensitise about what they discuss and post, which is extensive surveillance and a repression of international students,' he said. 'Intrusions into students' private lives could potentially lead to discrimination against international students due to their political beliefs or affiliations. 'Students should be removing any posts that could be deemed politically sensitive. Alternatively, they could have social media accounts that reflect a politically neutral position.' • Harvard can continue accepting foreign students, judge rules Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said: 'Everyone should be constantly aware of the fact that anything you put on social media is there for ever, even if you delete it. It's depressing if something you think at the age of 16 can affect your life and career'. He added: 'Telling people to delete social media to get a place at university is completely contrary to what higher education is about: letting people speak freely. It's utterly perverse. If you can't make mistakes when you're young, when can you?' Robert, a British student at Yale is back in the UK for the summer working at a school and helping students with US applications for next year. He said the application process was already complex without the added visa problem. 'It's been tough for students and for universities who are getting updates about visa changes only at the same time as the media, then trying to figure out what the government is doing,' he added. 'We're in the dark, Yale students were concerned because of comments made by the US government about current visa holders so there's a feeling that everything is falling under investigation. 'For those applying this year, it's been bittersweet, getting a place is an amazing opportunity then, bam! You can't get a visa. It's nerve-racking.' David Feinburg runs an education consultancy in New York that gives advice to overseas students applying to US universities. He said some universities were advising students to start their degrees at branch campuses outside the US if their visas were not processed in time. Boston and North Eastern universities both have branches in the UK. 'My advice to students is to be very careful on social media,' he said. 'You always want to be careful anyway.' This was echoed by Iain Mansfield, a former Department for Education adviser and head of education at Policy Exchange think tank, who said: 'When you go on social media, whatever you put up is there to stay for a long time and can be seen by future employers. And now by those considering your visa. It's an important lesson for young people. 'This may be a bit of a lifeline for British universities which are an obvious alternative and are very highly regarded, without the extra hurdles for the US. Some British students who thought of going to the US will be staying local.'