Recent U.S. military strikes on Iran’s key nuclear sites may have delivered only a limited setback to Tehran’s atomic program, according to an early assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The findings, which suggest the program was stalled by mere months rather than being “completely and fully obliterated” as claimed by President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, highlight a significant dispute within the U.S. government and among allies regarding the effectiveness of the military action.
The strikes, which occurred on Sunday, June 23, targeted critical Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. While the DIA report, described by sources as preliminary and carrying a “low confidence” assessment, indicates significant damage was inflicted, it concludes the sites were not totally destroyed.
Key Findings from the Intelligence Assessment:
The intelligence assessment points to several factors limiting the strikes’ long-term impact:
Limited Setback Duration: The report suggests Iran’s nuclear program was set back by only a few months. Some assessments indicate enrichment activities could potentially resume within months to less than a year, depending on the time required to clear entrances and repair essential utilities like power and water.
Underground Survival: At the deeply buried Fordo enrichment plant, despite B-2 stealth bombers dropping massive 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs that collapsed the entrance and damaged above-ground infrastructure, the core underground complex remained largely intact. Intelligence officials had reportedly warned before the strike that achieving total destruction of this hardened facility might not be possible.
Uranium and Centrifuges Potentially Intact: Crucially, the assessment indicates that at least some of Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, essential for nuclear weapons, may have been moved out of multiple sites before the strikes and survived. Furthermore, Iran’s centrifuges, vital for enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels, are believed to be largely undamaged.
Contrasting Claims of “Obliteration”
The findings of the DIA report stand in stark contrast to the strong assertions made by U.S. and Israeli leaders.
President Trump repeatedly characterized the strikes as resulting in “obliteration” and “total destruction,” claiming Iran would never rebuild its nuclear facilities and that the program was set back by “decades.” He dismissed the intelligence assessment as “very inconclusive” and criticized media outlets reporting on it.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu also declared that the strikes had “brought to ruin Iran’s nuclear program” and set back its ability to develop weapons by “many years.”
The White House and Pentagon have forcefully pushed back against the leaked intelligence assessment, calling it “flat-out wrong,” “preliminary,” and part of an attempt to undermine the President. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth maintained the mission was “flawless” and caused “devastation,” while Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to those who leaked the report as “professional stabbers.” Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff labeled the leak “treasonous.”
Signs Iran May Have Anticipated the Strikes
Satellite imagery and expert analysis lend support to the possibility that Iran anticipated the attacks and took steps to protect critical assets.
Satellite images from Maxar Technologies taken days before the strikes show trucks and bulldozers at the Fordo site. Experts suggest these could have been used to seal tunnel entrances with dirt as a protective measure, a view echoed by Maxar’s senior director.
Experts like Eric Brewer from the Nuclear Threat Initiative believe it is plausible that Iran used such trucks to move its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is relatively easy to transport in fortified canisters. While moving delicate centrifuges is more challenging, some could also have been relocated.
Iran had reportedly informed the IAEA on June 13, prior to the U.S. strikes, that it would take “special measures to protect our nuclear equipment and materials.”
Divided Expert Opinions and Future Uncertainty
Independent nuclear experts are divided on the full impact of the strikes. Some agree with the intelligence assessment that the setback is likely limited, pointing out that important parts of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure may not have been hit and that the knowledge required for nuclear development is difficult to eradicate. Others are more skeptical about the extent of material and equipment survival, suggesting Iran may have lost a significant number of centrifuges.
Concerns remain that if Iran has indeed retained significant quantities of highly enriched uranium (such as its approximate 408.6 kg stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, theoretically enough for one bomb if further enriched to 90%) and key centrifuges, it could provide a foundation for a reconstituted covert program. Experts warn that Iran could potentially enrich remaining 60% uranium to weapons-grade levels relatively quickly in a smaller, clandestine facility.
However, even with some assets surviving, experts note that the loss of certain vital equipment and potentially personnel could still create disadvantages for Iran if it attempted to pursue a covert nuclear weapon program.
While U.S. intelligence generally assesses Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon, estimates vary on how quickly it could produce one if its Supreme Leader made that decision (ranging from 3 to 18 months). Iran has stated its intent to continue its nuclear activities despite the strikes and had announced a new enrichment facility in Isfahan prior to the attacks, adding another layer of complexity to the situation. The discrepancy between the intelligence assessment and official claims underscores the difficulty in definitively determining the long-term impact of the strikes and raises questions about the path forward regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
