The tension escalates as the US president and defense officials reject intelligence claims, asserting a formidable impact from the strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
**Trump Denies Report on Limited Impact of US Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Program**
**Trump Denies Report on Limited Impact of US Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Program**
Amidst leaked assessments suggesting minimal damage, Trump asserts significant setback to Iran’s nuclear capabilities following recent military action.
In a heated response to a leaked intelligence report, Donald Trump and senior officials from his administration have dismissed assertions that US military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities had only a limited effect. At a NATO summit in The Hague, Trump contended that the strikes significantly damaged Iran’s nuclear capabilities, claiming they pushed its nuclear program back "by decades."
In contrast, the leaked report from defense analysts indicated that while the strikes had disrupted some operations at Iran's sites, they had only delayed the nuclear program by a few months and did not eliminate the stockpile of enriched uranium. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth emphasized that the preliminary assessment was characterized by “low confidence” and noted a federal investigation into the leaks.
The report outlined that the military actions focused on key sites such as Fordo and Natanz, managing to seal entrances but not entirely destroying the well-protected underground facilities. Intelligence experts cautioned that the information remains provisional and could evolve as additional insights are gained.
During the summit, Trump admitted some uncertainty regarding the intelligence, describing it as "very inconclusive," yet he quickly strengthened his claims, labeling the strikes as an “obliteration” of Iran’s capabilities. His remarks drew parallels to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima, underscoring the argument that such force was necessary to avert further conflicts.
Officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio backed Trump’s stance, disputing the credibility of the leaked information and suggesting that it had been misrepresented. Hegseth labeled the leak politically motivated and asserted that the military's precision had ensured the strikes were effective despite contradictions in the subsequent assessments.
In the days following the attacks on multiple sites, satellite imagery has revealed craters at the Fordo location, yet the depth of the damage beneath the surface remains unclear. Reports indicate that the facilities may have been prepared for the strikes, with crucial materials relocated beforehand, inherently reducing their effectiveness.
Iran maintains that its nuclear program is dedicated to peaceful purposes, and while both US and Israeli officials have celebrated the military operation as a success, the conflicting narratives highlight a significant division in perceptions of its implications for regional stability. As assessments continue to unfold, the international community watches closely the evolving situation surrounding Iran's nuclear ambitions.
In contrast, the leaked report from defense analysts indicated that while the strikes had disrupted some operations at Iran's sites, they had only delayed the nuclear program by a few months and did not eliminate the stockpile of enriched uranium. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth emphasized that the preliminary assessment was characterized by “low confidence” and noted a federal investigation into the leaks.
The report outlined that the military actions focused on key sites such as Fordo and Natanz, managing to seal entrances but not entirely destroying the well-protected underground facilities. Intelligence experts cautioned that the information remains provisional and could evolve as additional insights are gained.
During the summit, Trump admitted some uncertainty regarding the intelligence, describing it as "very inconclusive," yet he quickly strengthened his claims, labeling the strikes as an “obliteration” of Iran’s capabilities. His remarks drew parallels to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima, underscoring the argument that such force was necessary to avert further conflicts.
Officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio backed Trump’s stance, disputing the credibility of the leaked information and suggesting that it had been misrepresented. Hegseth labeled the leak politically motivated and asserted that the military's precision had ensured the strikes were effective despite contradictions in the subsequent assessments.
In the days following the attacks on multiple sites, satellite imagery has revealed craters at the Fordo location, yet the depth of the damage beneath the surface remains unclear. Reports indicate that the facilities may have been prepared for the strikes, with crucial materials relocated beforehand, inherently reducing their effectiveness.
Iran maintains that its nuclear program is dedicated to peaceful purposes, and while both US and Israeli officials have celebrated the military operation as a success, the conflicting narratives highlight a significant division in perceptions of its implications for regional stability. As assessments continue to unfold, the international community watches closely the evolving situation surrounding Iran's nuclear ambitions.
