The Trump administration and Israeli leaders called it a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program. Even Iran’s Foreign Ministry acknowledges the strikes caused “excessive and serious damage.” But a growing body of intelligence and seasoned military voices are casting doubt on just how far back the United States’ strikes on Iran pushed Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
A preliminary assessment from the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) concluded that the June 21 airstrikes may have delayed Iran’s nuclear work by only a few months. That’s a far cry from U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim of “total obliteration.” And while military officials said the “bunker-buster” bombs performed as intended, the deeper question — how much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was actually destroyed? — is proving harder to answer.
Bombs on target, but big picture still blurry
The air campaign, known as Operation Midnight Hammer, struck Iran’s key nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. The Air Force dropped 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrators — 30,000-pound bombs designed to smash through reinforced underground structures on Fordo and Natanz. A submarine struck Isfahan with 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
“A bomb has three effects that cause damage: blast, fragmentation and overpressure,” said Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At Fordo and Netanz, he said, “the primary kill mechanism was a mix of overpressure and blast ripping through the open tunnels and destroying critical hardware.”
While Caine and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth touted the strikes as a success, the initial DIA report paints a murkier picture. The assessment — based on preliminary intelligence and satellite imagery — concluded that the bombs caved in entrances and damaged infrastructure at the nuclear enrichment site. However, the assessment found, the underground facilities themselves did not collapse.
Reuters cited a source familiar with the findings who said Iran’s ability to restart operations hinges on “how long it takes them to dig out and build or repair” damaged systems like power and water supplies.
Precision isn’t certainty
Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Weatherington, former deputy commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, urged the public and policymakers alike to take a breath.
“The first thing that’s going to happen is the crew, or a follow-on crew, might observe some effects on the target,” Weatherington said. “Yes, the weapons released. They released in certain parameters. But that’s just the first layer.”
Weatherington said early observations, while positive, are inherently limited.
“It really doesn’t tell you anything about the impact on the target area, especially with a target like this, because it is so deep and so obscured from direct observation,” he said. “ I think that’s what part of the challenge was when you had some initial reporting coming out — one source, one day’s worth of information or less, right? Just a small set of observations. That’s going to be a low-confidence type of thing, right?”
Weatherington said a meaningful battle damage assessment draws intelligence from multiple sources, including satellite data, air sampling, signals analysis and human assets. Only then, he said, can analysts determine whether Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium has truly been neutralized, or just delayed.
“This is not a game-winning field goal as time expired,” Weatherington warned. “We didn’t just win the Super Bowl, and we can all say, ‘Thank goodness that’s over.’ The question is, how much will Iran compete? How much will they continue to drive on a nuclear program? Did this increase their ambition or drive in that way?”
White House pushes back on intelligence
The White House dismissed the DIA assessment as premature and incorrect.
“Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14, 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed that line. “Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons,” Hegseth said during a Thursday, June 26 briefing with reporters. “The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran.”
But analysts caution that deeply buried facilities like Fordo may not show obvious damage from space. According to The Washington Post, some uranium-enrichment centrifuges may have survived the strikes, and Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium — enough for roughly nine warheads — remains unaccounted for.
David Albright, a former United Nations nuclear inspector, said the attacks probably destroyed Iran’s current enrichment efforts but did not erase the long-term threat.
“Iran retains an ability to break out and produce weapon-grade uranium,” Albright wrote on X.
Not all intelligence agrees
Diverging assessments from the intelligence community are not unusual in the early stages of a complex operation, especially one involving fortified, subterranean targets. But the stakes — both nuclear and political — are immense.
Democratic leaders remain unconvinced of the effectiveness of Operation Midnight Hammer.
“There’s zero evidence that I’ve seen that the nuclear program was completely and totally obliterated as Donald Trump has claimed,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said.
Classified briefings for Congress originally set for Tuesday, June 24 were abruptly canceled, leaving lawmakers and the public with more questions than answers. Those briefings were eventually held on Friday, June 27, but elected leaders left the meetings split along party lines. However, Weatherington said, uncertainty is endemic to this kind of warfare.
“There’s so many more factors, so many more variables, so much more information that must be gathered to build confidence in that reporting,” he said. “We shouldn’t have expected it to be any different.”
The bigger strategic question
Whether the strikes damaged Iran’s capabilities to produce nuclear weapons in the short term or not, Weatherington warns the broader contest is far from over.
Iran’s regime is “a thinking, reacting adversary,” he said. “They certainly have ingenuity. They certainly have determination.”
Even though the strikes changed the strategic environment in the Middle East, Weatherington said, “we shouldn’t think it changed this competition with Iran forever.”
The true impact of the strikes may not be measured in craters or collapsed shafts, but in Iran’s next moves and whether the cycle of confrontation slows down or spirals out of control.
