Latest news with #BattleDamageAssessment
Axios
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Axios
Scoop: Trump to limit sharing classified info with Congress after leak on Iran bombing damage
The Trump administration plans to limit sharing classified information with Congress after someone leaked an internal assessment suggesting that Saturday's bombings of Iran's nuclear facilities weren't as successful as President Trump claimed, four sources tell Axios. The FBI also is investigating the leak, the sources said. Why it matters: The leaking of the preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency's "Battle Damage Assessment" outraged Trump and top U.S. officials, who said it was incomplete and that its release was aimed at undercutting Trump's claims that Iran's nuclear sites had been "obliterated." "We are declaring a war on leakers," a senior White House official said Wednesday. "The FBI is investigating the leak," the source said. "The intelligence community is figuring out how to tighten up their processes so we don't have 'Deep State' actors leaking parts of intel analysis that have 'low confidence' to the media." Zoom in: The administration sources say they're planning to limit posting on CAPNET, a system the administration uses to share classified information with Congress. The DIA's assessment on the Iran bombings was put on CAPNET late Monday. The next afternoon, CNN and then The New York Times, reported snippets of the assessment. The early media reports indicated that Iran's nuclear program had been set back only by a matter of months, instead of being "obliterated." Zoom out: Democrats in Congress already were upset at the administration for refusing to brief some members before the bombings, and the White House's plans to further restrict the sharing of classified information are likely to provoke a fresh round of criticism. Administration officials are unmoved, however. "Go figure: Almost as soon as we put the information on CAPNET, it leaks," an administration source said. "There's no reason to do this again." Between the lines: The sources who spoke with Axios said they couldn't disclose more details of the DIA assessment, but emphasized three aspects of the report: It took was put together in the 24 hours after the bombings, and was based on a review of satellite photos and not on-the-ground witnesses to the damage. It was just one early "snapshot" of information from only one of the 18 agencies in the intelligence community. The report self-acknowledged the "low confidence" of the assessment, which was to be used as a tool to guide whether the administration wanted to bomb the facilities again. Then there's the early assessment by Israeli intelligence services, who said the U.S. and Israeli strikes caused "very significant" damage. The big picture: Since his first run for president in 2016, when his campaign was investigated for its ties to Russia, Trump has been deeply suspicious of the intelligence community. Tuesday's disclosures only increased that sense of paranoia. "Trump knows the IC [intelligence community] has spooks who hate his guts," one adviser said. What they're saying: At a NATO press conference in Europe on Wednesday, Trump criticized the coverage of the DIA leak, as did Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and national security adviser. They said the U.S. hit Iran's three nuclear sites with so many Tomahawk missiles and massive bunker-busting bombs that the country's program was set back significantly, echoing the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. "All this stuff about the intelligence: This is what a leaker is telling you the intelligence says," Rubio said.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
I've been through the Strait of Hormuz many times. Here's my take
Obtaining accurate Battle Damage Assessment after a raid or strike is rarely quick. What effect you have had is sometimes hard to see and what knock-on effect you have had, hard to judge. Following Operation Midnight Hammer and the US penetration strikes on Iran's nuclear programme, one place likely to see knock-on effects is the Strait of Hormuz. Those of us who have faced down onrushing swarms of fast-attack craft there, or been involved in planning how to counter them – or the Iranian mines or submarines – will know how important the Strait is to Iran. Much effort and expense has been devoted to ensuring that they could control it if the moment arose. Is this the moment? Yesterday afternoon the Iranian parliament officially approved closing the Strait for the first time since 1972. While that is a nominal authorisation rather than a decision, it affirms the Iranian belief that control of this key chokepoint is in their gift. One point that needs to be made loud and clear is the difference between closing the Strait and contesting it. They could close it in spite of the fact that the skies appear to belong to the Israeli air force. The Strait is a long sortie for Israeli planes and will not have been a priority in the last few weeks. Iran has thousands of mines and fast attack craft, dispersed along the coast specifically to make them hard to strike. They have hard-to-detect midget submarines armed with heavyweight torpedoes designed to sink the largest ships. They also have an array of shorter-range cruise and ballistic missiles on mobile launchers which could cause havoc if all deployed at once: think Houthis x 10. We now know these capabilities are not as good as we thought, and some will have been neutralised, but mass and mobility still count. But I don't believe they will close the Strait, not deliberately anyway. It's not in their economic interest, would annoy what few regional friends they have – in particular Qatar – would unite the Gulf against them and, most critically, a closure would be unacceptable to China. The tried and tested assumption has always been Iran would only close the Strait if the regime was about to fall, and we don't seem to be there yet. Iran might contest the chokepoint, though. This is a different proposition and is being confused in the dialogue a lot. GPS jamming there is already at record high levels, though this is probably not aimed at merchant shipping: it will be intended to confuse US and Israeli aircraft and missiles. Boardings, riding off and harassment have been standard fare for the last 20 years – they could turn this up a notch, targeting specific carriers and cargoes – perhaps those destined for Western nations only. Mines are key here because you don't even need to lay them to have an effect, just say you have, and risk appetites and war risk insurance premiums adjust accordingly. They already are, and some ships are already refusing to go through. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (which is separate from the regular Iranian navy) have a tactic where a swarm attack drives your ship into a pre laid mine pattern. This would be too aggressive (for now) but the point to note is that they have procured for, practiced and rehearsed this sort of thing since the late 80s. It's a different battlespace to the one that took dozens of allied warships to keep open back then. Until quite recently the Royal Navy was one of the best in the world at mine countermeasures (MCM) – it's one of the US Navy's few weaknesses – and again until recently we had a useful MCM force of several minehunters and a command ship based in the Gulf at Bahrain. But a fatal combination of a manpower crisis in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, an unfortunate collision, maintenance cycles and a rushed plan to switch from manned minehunters to unmanned systems means that right now there is just one RN minehunter active in the Gulf, and there is no option to deploy the new unmanned stuff. Making a useful MCM effort in the Strait could be difficult in the teeth of Iranian missiles anyway, though if we had the assets the US could probably assign Aegis air-defence warships to protect them. It would also be complicated by the fact that Iran sometimes uses free-floating unmoored mines, illegal under the Hague Convention, which can drift into an area you think you've cleared. While the Bab el Mandeb has one significant difference to Hormuz – there is an alternative route – the way the Houthis conducted escalation management there is relevant. For over a year they created just the right amount of risk to achieve their end states without provoking a massive response. In the end they got one anyway, and took such a battering from America that they ceased fire (though reportedly they have now ended that) but that was as much to do with the change in US leadership as anything else. The point is, for a long time, they didn't close the Bab El Mandeb but they did control it, and who do you think they learned that skill from? So I do think that Iranian disruption activity in the Strait is likely. Their leadership is clearly in disarray. Command and control is shot and their competence and authority eroded with every unopposed Israeli jet flying over Tehran. Add some strategic strikes that you never saw coming and there must be some desperate conversations going on underground just now. The regime needs to do something visible. Nevertheless, if they do interfere there in some form or other, they know full well what the response will be because there are two US carrier strike groups in the Gulf of Oman. A third, the USS Gerald R Ford, sails for the Mediterranean tomorrow. The beating the Houthis eventually received is there to serve as an object lesson. But if they ignore this and contest the strait anyway, operations to keep it clear it will be difficult, high risk, lengthy (mine clearance is a notoriously protracted operation), expensive in munitions (striking minelaying fishing boats and jet skis with missiles) and most importantly, embroil the US in the exact conflict they've just said they want to avoid. And the Houthis are down but probably not out of this either. That said it would be a sea and air fight, no messy ground war 'among the people' as in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it would be expensive in money but probably not in US and allied lives. I can't be sure how this plays out any more than I know how damaged Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon is today, and would treat with caution anyone professing to know either. Asking around, it's perhaps interesting that people like me who have seen Iran's capabilities up close over the years tend to think that limited disruption in the Strait is now inevitable; it's in their DNA, they are well prepared and it's hard to counter. But those who haven't, and look at the situation from a more diplomatic or economic angle, tend to think it isn't. I hope they're right because the last thing anyone needs right now is another spike in oil and gas prices. The question for me, today, is does Iran care?
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Touts 'Obliteration' of Iran Sites Seen in Satellite Images
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump said "monumental damage" was done to Iran's nuclear sites citing satellite imagery after Tehran disputed whether the strikes on the facilities had dealt a knockout blow to the Islamic Republic's atomic program. Trump posted on Truth Social on Sunday that "obliteration is an accurate term" for the strikes on three key Iranian facilities amid attempts by analysts to clarify whether the strikes had completely destroyed Iran's hopes for developing a nuclear bomb. Former Israeli intelligence official Avi Melamed told Newsweek that at this stage, Iran's military nuclear program has been significantly set back by the attacks but not entirely dismantled. President Donald Trump disembarks Marine One upon arrival at the White House South Lawn in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2025. President Donald Trump disembarks Marine One upon arrival at the White House South Lawn in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2025. MEHMET ESER//Getty Images Why It Matters Trump said the U.S. struck Fordow, around 60 miles south of Tehran, as well as the Natanz complex to the southeast and Isfahan, southwest of Natanz. The U.S. president is often accused of hyperbole and social media posts saying Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been destroyed have been greeted with caution by analysts as questions remain over whether the operation dubbed Midnight Hammer spells the end of the Iranian nuclear threat. What To Know On Sunday, Trump posted that "monumental damage" had been done to all nuclear sites in Iran, citing satellite imagery. He described how the white structure in one image was embedded into the rock and the biggest damage took place far below ground level," adding "Bullseye!!!" U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said there was "severe damage and destruction" to the facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, but did not say Iran's nuclear capacities had been obliterated. Trump did not share the imagery in his post but he could have been referring to pictures published by the firm Maxar on Sunday showing large craters or holes at the top of the ridge above the underground complex at Fordow. When asked if Iran still retains any nuclear capability, Caine said that "BDA is still pending" referring to Battle Damage Assessment by intelligence analysts and reconnaissance teams, using data from drones, satellites, radar, or ground reports. Melamed, a Middle East analyst told Newsweek Iran's military nuclear program has been significantly set back—though not entirely dismantled. Craters are visible and ash can be seen on the ridge at Fordow on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the underground facility. Craters are visible and ash can be seen on the ridge at Fordow on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the underground facility. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies Tehran can either escalate, which threatens the regime's survival, or negotiate, which would preserve its power base "while swallowing a bitter pill," he said. At this point, all eyes should be on Beijing who will likely pressure Iran to deescalate. Pranay Vaddi, who served as special assistant to President Joe Biden as well as senior director for arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation at the National Security Council, told the publication Defense One that if the deeper reaches of Fordow had survived, Iran could still enrich uranium beyond the reach of the monitors of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). That may require further "high risk" U.S. action if the locations are beyond the reach of bunker-busting bombs. Also, Iran retains substantial know-how on enrichment and possibly nuclear weaponization, added Vaddi, senior nuclear fellow in the Center for Nuclear Security Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The UN nuclear watchdog chief, Rafael Grossi, has said it was not yet possible to assess the damage done at the Fordow nuclear facility. Iranian state media said key nuclear sites had been evacuated ahead of U.S. attacks, with enriched uranium moved "to a safe location." What People Are Saying President Donald Trump on Truth Social: "Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!" Former Israeli intelligence official Avi Melamed: "At this stage, it can be assessed that Iran's military nuclear program has been significantly set back—though not entirely dismantled." Pranay Vaddi, former senior director for arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation at the National Security Council, to Defense One: "If the deeper reaches of Fordow survive, Iran is able to enrich, and there's no monitoring anymore because Iran suspends any IAEA access, that's a bad outcome and may require further U.S. action." What Happens Next Tehran has threatened retaliation for the strikes. Experts say these could include additional rocket launches at Israel, the disruption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz or strikes against U.S. military sites.
