Despite bold declarations from President Donald Trump and senior defense officials, early U.S. intelligence assessments indicate that last weekend’s military strikes on three of Iran’s key nuclear sites did not fully dismantle the country’s nuclear capabilities.
According to an initial evaluation conducted by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and described by four individuals familiar with its contents, the strikes are believed to have caused significant damage but only set Iran’s nuclear program back by a few months.
The analysis, which has not been previously reported, is based on a battle damage assessment conducted by U.S. Central Command in the immediate aftermath of the operation.
While additional intelligence is still being gathered, the early conclusions directly contradict claims made by Trump, who said the sites were “completely and totally obliterated,” and by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who echoed that Iran’s nuclear ambitions “have been obliterated.”
Two individuals familiar with the DIA assessment told CNN that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium remains intact, and one added that the centrifuges suffered minimal damage. “The assessment is that the strikes set Iran back by maybe a few months, tops,” the source said.
The White House, when asked for comment, acknowledged the assessment’s existence but firmly rejected its conclusions. In a combative statement to CNN, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the intelligence “flat-out wrong,” claiming it was leaked by “an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community” in an attempt to discredit President Trump and the military.
“Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration,” she said.
The Pentagon, meanwhile, has stated that the mission was executed as planned and labeled it “an overwhelming success.” However, intelligence officials are still collecting information, including from sources within Iran, and caution that it is too early to draw definitive conclusions about the long-term impact of the operation.
Continue reading