New report suggests US bombing of Iran did severe damage despite leaked intel claims
A leaked preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment from the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) suggested that recent strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites (Fordow, Natanz, Esfahan) set the programme back by mere months, not destroying it entirely, contradicting President Trump’s claims of complete obliteration. Satellite imagery confirms damage, especially to entrance tunnels, but the true extent remains uncertain without on-site inspection.
Trump administration officials, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe and DNI Tulsi Gabbard, have cited “new intelligence” indicating the strikes inflicted severe damage, requiring years of rebuilding, and have dismissed the DIA leak as a low-confidence, incomplete assessment.
In response, Iran’s parliament has unanimously approved suspending cooperation with the IAEA, limiting independent verification, which further clouds understanding of the damage’s real impact.
Read a WTX News report on the US bombing of Iran
🔁 Reactions:
- Trump admin (Ratcliffe/Gabbard/X): “New intel confirms Iran’s nuclear sites were destroyed, rebuilding would take years.” (theguardian.com)
- Opposition (DIA source): “This preliminary leak shows the program may restart in just months, not obliterated.” (reuters.com)
- Viral/public (non-proliferation expert): > “Without IAEA access, we’re guessing damage remotely, it’s a murky battlefield.” (reuters.com)
📰 Bias Snapshot:
- Reuters/AP/Guardian deliver factual, measured reporting, reporting contrasting intelligence views and emphasising satellite data uncertainties.
- U.S. officials (Ratcliffe/Gabbard) frame evidence positively, reinforcing Trump’s rhetoric that the strikes were decisive (theguardian.com).
- Analysts (Time/ISW) warn that a lack of IAEA verification erodes transparency and may embolden Iran to accelerate nuclear efforts (time.com).
📊 Sentiment: Neutral–negative. The clouded intelligence picture and limited verification raise doubts over the operation’s enduring impact, potentially emboldening Iran and diluting the strategic value of U.S. intervention.
