An early U.S. intelligence report has painted a surprising picture: the much‑touted strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities did not destroy the program, but merely delayed it by a few months. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, bunker‑busting bombs targeted at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan damaged above‑ground structures—sealing off some tunnel entrances—but left critical underground infrastructure intact. Centrifuges survive, enriched uranium remains, and the pathway to revival is still open.
President Trump had claimed these bombings had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He announced that 30,000‑pound bombs had completely destroyed their capability. But the DIA’s assessment points in another direction: this was a setback, not a knockout. Iran’s nuclear chief confirmed that vital enrichment capacity endures, bolstered by pre‑emptive measures to secure stockpiles.
The White House has rejected the intelligence findings outright. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the report “flat‑out wrong” and disparaged anonymous sources. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed the original narrative: “Our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons,” he insisted. Yet, independent experts caution that assessments remain preliminary, satellite imagery is incomplete, and the U.S. bombing campaign may have had limited underground effect.
At the U.N. Security Council, Trump administration officials described the strikes as having “degraded” the program—a softer tone than the initial rhetoric. Analysts note that while some facilities are damaged above ground, Iran’s ability to rebuild remains. The IAEA has identified signs of resumed activity underground, reinforcing fears that enrichment processes could restart within months .
The stakes are high. If Iran can rebound quickly, what was billed as a decisive blow may instead fuel further military engagements. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, have argued that their strikes eliminated the immediate nuclear threat—but without full destruction, a return to status quo ante looms .
Globally, reactions range from growing worries that U.S. claims were exaggerated to renewed calls for diplomacy. A rushed bombing campaign may have achieved shock value, but without ground-truth evidence of success, its efficacy remains in doubt. Meanwhile, Iran has signaled intent to resume enrichment and could withdraw cooperation from the IAEA .
For the world, the message is clear: bombing is not a substitute for verification. As intelligence assessments evolve, so too must policy. If Washington is serious about halting Iran’s nuclear progress, follow‑through—via inspections, diplomacy, and careful intelligence work—will matter far more than headlines.
