In the early hours of June 21, 2025, the U.S. launched Operation Midnight Hammer, deploying B-2 bombers and submarines to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. President Donald Trump proclaimed these sites were “completely and totally obliterated,” asserting a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
However, a preliminary five-page Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, leaked shortly after the strikes, paints a different picture. The assessment suggests that while entrances to some facilities were sealed, the core infrastructure remains largely intact, setting back Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months.
The Discrepancy Between Rhetoric and Reality
After listening to President Trump, you’d think we reduced every underground lab and uranium stockpile in Iran to smoking rubble. But the truth is a lot less clear-cut cut and the President’s words send me scrambling to find a dictionary to see exactly what the word “obliterate” technically means.
The five-page DIA report, which is highly classified and only recently leaked to the press, gives a sobering assessment of what the U.S. bombing campaign actually achieved. Yes, it confirms that the strikes caused significant damage to surface-level infrastructure—administrative buildings, access roads, and entrance tunnels were hit hard. But the report stops well short of validating Trump’s “obliteration” narrative.
In the early hours of June 21, 2025, the U.S. launched Operation Midnight Hammer, deploying B-2 bombers and submarines to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. President Donald Trump proclaimed these sites were “completely and totally obliterated,” asserting a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
However, a preliminary five-page Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, leaked shortly after the strikes, paints a different picture. The assessment suggests that while entrances to some facilities were sealed, the core infrastructure remains largely intact, setting back Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months.
The Discrepancy Between Rhetoric and Reality
After listening to President Trump, you’d think we reduced every underground lab and uranium stockpile in Iran to smoking rubble. But the truth is a lot less clear-cut cut and the President’s words send me scrambling to find a dictionary to see exactly what the word “obliterate” technically means.
The five-page DIA report, which is highly classified and only recently leaked to the press, gives a sobering assessment of what the U.S. bombing campaign actually achieved. Yes, it confirms that the strikes caused significant damage to surface-level infrastructure—administrative buildings, access roads, and entrance tunnels were hit hard. But the report stops well short of validating Trump’s “obliteration” narrative.
According to the DIA, the strikes only set Iran’s nuclear program back by a few months, not years.
Most of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles and nearly all of its centrifuges remained untouched, preserved in hardened underground bunkers that the U.S. bombs failed to fully penetrate.
The report also notes that the entrances to some of these facilities were sealed, not collapsed. In other words, the doors are closed, not destroyed—and Iran may be able to resume work once it clears the rubble. Importantly, the DIA called its own assessment “low-confidence,” acknowledging that it’s still too early for definitive conclusions. More intelligence and possibly physical inspections will be required to understand the full extent of the damage.
Meanwhile, President Trump and his team have gone on the offensive, not against Iran, but against the intelligence community. Trump dismissed the DIA’s findings outright, labeling the assessment as “incomplete” and “flat-out wrong.” According to him, the early report lacks the benefit of on-the-ground observation and is being used to downplay what he sees as a major military success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed that sentiment, calling the leak of the report politically motivated and standing by the president’s declaration of victory.
The differences between the intelligence and the political messaging are stark. While the DIA is urging caution and further verification, the administration is painting a picture of overwhelming success. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
Trump insists that the Iranian nuclear threat has been neutralized. The intelligence community, and increasingly independent analysts, say otherwise. Satellite imagery supports the view that while some buildings were heavily damaged, Iran’s underground nuclear infrastructure may be largely intact.
What we’re left with is a situation where the public is being told two very different stories. On one side, the Commander-in-Chief is claiming mission accomplished with fireworks and fanfare. On the other, our own military intelligence is warning that the mission may have only slowed, not stopped, Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We won’t know for certain until a full battle damage assessment is complete—which could take weeks or even months.
In the meantime, it’s important to recognize that this isn’t just a technical disagreement about bomb damage. It’s a window into how intelligence is being politicized and spun to fit a narrative. If we’re going to make real decisions about national security, we need to deal in facts, not slogans. Until then, we’re flying blind—again.
Political Fallout and International Implications
President Trump’s airstrikes on Iran sent shockwaves through the bunkers beneath Natanz and Fordow and also tore open a political hornet’s nest back home. The decision to green-light a massive military operation with little to no congressional input has reignited concerns about executive overreach. For many on Capitol Hill—especially Democrats—Trump’s go-it-alone approach raises constitutional red flags.
It’s about more than bombs and bunkers; it’s about checks and balances, and a commander-in-chief who increasingly acts without consulting the other branches of government.
To make matters worse, the administration canceled classified briefings with lawmakers following the operation. That move—tone-deaf at best, intentionally evasive at worst—has sparked bipartisan frustration and fed a growing narrative that this White House is allergic to transparency.
Trump’s team has been shouting about success, waving flags and claiming total victory, while offering precious little in terms of verifiable detail. That’s not how you build trust in a democracy—it’s how you fuel suspicion and partisan firestorms
Abroad, things aren’t much calmer. The operation was carried out in coordination with Israel, further cementing an already explosive dynamic in the region. Iran fired back with a symbolic missile strike on a U.S. base in Qatar, which was intercepted with no casualties. Then came a shaky ceasefire, brokered quietly by U.S. diplomats, but don’t be fooled—this thing’s far from over.
Despite their weak strikes on US interests, the Iranian leadership is fuming, warning of potential future retaliation. The fuse may have stopped burning for now, but the powder keg hasn’t gone anywhere.
Europe, meanwhile, is not impressed. Many of our allies across the Atlantic wanted to keep the door open for diplomacy. Instead, they woke up to headlines about bunker busters and obliteration. The backlash has been swift. Relations with key European partners are strained, and the broader framework for international nonproliferation has been deeply shaken—possibly beyond repair.
Inside Iran, hardliners are dancing in the streets. The strikes, instead of weakening the regime, may have handed its most extreme voices a propaganda win. Moderates who once advocated dialogue with the West are now being sidelined, if not silenced outright. Negotiating with Tehran just got a lot harder, and any hope of stabilizing the region through diplomatic means may be fading fast.
Wrapping Up
So, sure, we hit some targets. But did we achieve strategic success? That’s the billion-dollar question. U.S. intelligence agencies say Iran’s nuclear program was only set back by a few months. The centrifuges are still there. The uranium’s still enriched. And the leadership in Tehran is still defiant.
We may have won the night—but whether we’ve won anything that lasts is still up for debate.
COMMENTS
There are
You must become a subscriber or login to view or post comments on this article.