Washington: In a fiery post on Truth Social, former President Donald Trump doubled down on his claim that U.S. military strikes had entirely obliterated Iran’s key nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan—despite a leaked U.S. intelligence report suggesting otherwise.
Trump’s Bold Claims and Media Clash
On June 24, Trump asserted that the three nuclear sites were “completely destroyed” in U.S. strikes, dismissing skepticism from mainstream media outlets.
He criticized CNN and The New York Times for reporting on a leaked classified intelligence briefing, labeling them as “fake news” and “failing,” respectively.
Trump accused the media of teaming up to undermine what he describes as one of the most successful military operations in recent history, claiming that both outlets are “getting slammed by the public” for their coverage.
Leaked U.S. Intelligence Challenges Trump’s Narrative
The controversy stems from a leaked preliminary intelligence report from the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s top foreign military intelligence agency.
The report suggests that the recent bombing campaign, which Trump previously claimed had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities, has only delayed Iran’s nuclear program by approximately three months instead of completely destroying the facilities.
According to the New York Times report, entrances to two key sites were sealed, but the fortified underground complexes themselves — at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — remain structurally intact.
Based on the battle damage assessment conducted by the US Central Command in the aftermath of the strikes, it concluded that while the mission disrupted operations, it didn’t collapse the core infrastructure.
Reactions and Implications
Trump’s insistence on the success of the strikes and his dismissal of the leaked intelligence highlight ongoing tensions over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the effectiveness of military interventions.
The conflicting narratives between official intelligence assessments and Trump’s public statements underscore the complex and contentious debate over Iran’s nuclear program and U.S. policy responses.
