In fact, according to sources familiar with the findings, the strikes likely only set back Iran's nuclear program by a few months, not years as many had expected. Even more troubling, the strikes failed to destroy much of the core infrastructure, leaving Iran with the ability to rapidly recover and potentially advance its nuclear capabilities.
The Promise and Reality of the Strikes
The U.S. government had confidently predicted that the military operation would permanently cripple Iran’s nuclear ambitions, with Trump claiming that the strikes “completely and totally obliterated” the facilities. His Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, was equally adamant, asserting that the nuclear sites were buried under rubble, rendering them useless for any future nuclear development. The operation was hailed as a resounding success, a testament to American military superiority.
Yet, as the dust settled and initial assessments from the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) came through, the reality was far less definitive. According to leaked reports, Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was largely untouched by the bombs. The country had already moved much of its uranium stockpile to undisclosed locations before the strikes, and the centrifuges, which play a pivotal role in the enrichment process, remained largely intact. In fact, the primary damage occurred to the above-ground infrastructure, with power grids and facilities used for uranium conversion suffering heavy blows.
While the strikes on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan were indeed destructive, the damage was mostly superficial, leaving Iran with the ability to repair and rebuild in a matter of months. The three nuclear sites, which had been heavily fortified and buried deep underground, were not obliterated as U.S. officials had hoped. Despite the use of B-2 bombers and the deployment of 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs, the sites remained largely operational, with key elements of Iran’s nuclear program still intact.
The Mirage of "Obliteration"
The disconnect between the Trump administration’s rhetoric and the actual outcomes has raised uncomfortable questions about the efficacy of the military strikes. If anything, the reports suggest that the strikes served as a temporary setback rather than a permanent blow to Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Even former military officials expressed skepticism about the bombings' effectiveness, noting that while the strikes caused significant damage, they likely did not achieve the intended result of incapacitating Iran’s nuclear program for the long term.
General Joseph Votel, former commander of U.S. Central Command, voiced his confidence in the military's choice of weapons systems but also pointed out that no operation is without its uncertainties. “Everything can go as planned, but there are still other factors,” he explained, emphasizing that the true impact of the strikes would only become clear with more time and intelligence. Similarly, the Pentagon’s top brass, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine, echoed this sentiment, warning that it was still too early to assess the full scope of the damage.
Behind the Scenes: Disagreements and Leaks
The narrative surrounding the bombing has been rife with internal disputes and leaks. The DIA’s early assessment, which contradicts the administration's more optimistic public stance, was leaked to the press by an anonymous source, setting off a firestorm of criticism. In response, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt blasted the leak, calling the assessment “flat-out wrong” and accusing it of being a deliberate attempt to undermine the president's credibility. “Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration,” she declared, dismissing the DIA’s findings as a smear campaign against Trump’s successful military operation.
The clash between the intelligence community and the White House intensified when Trump himself took to social media to denounce the leaks, labeling them as “fake news” and doubling down on his assertion that Iran’s nuclear program had been completely destroyed. “One of the most successful military strikes in history,” he proclaimed in a Truth Social post, while emphasizing that “the nuclear sites in Iran are completely destroyed!”
But even within the military ranks, there was a sense of caution. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Republican lawmaker and former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, acknowledged that the goal of the strike had never been to completely eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities. “It was always known to be a temporary setback,” McCaul explained, echoing the sentiment of military planners who had always viewed the operation as a short-term measure rather than a permanent solution.
Israel's Role and the Bigger Picture
While the U.S. military had its role to play, Israel had been conducting its own airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities in the days leading up to the American operation. The Israeli assessment of the impact of the strikes was equally telling. Israeli defense officials claimed that the combined American and Israeli efforts would set back Iran’s nuclear program by at least two years—assuming Iran could rebuild the damaged facilities unhindered.
However, the Israeli view was not entirely aligned with the U.S. assessment. Israeli officials suggested that Iran still possessed several clandestine nuclear facilities, which were not targeted in the strikes. These underground complexes, they argued, could quickly resume nuclear operations, allowing Iran to bypass the damage inflicted on its larger, more visible sites.
The fact that some of the most critical components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remained intact raised serious questions about the long-term effectiveness of the operation. “These facilities could serve as the basis for the rapid reconstitution of Iran’s nuclear program,” said Jeffrey Lewis, a weapons expert from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, in a statement that cast doubt on the supposed success of the airstrikes.
The Hidden Costs of Military Action
This ongoing saga reveals a broader, often overlooked truth about military strikes: the immediate impact is never the whole story. The damage to Iran’s nuclear sites, while significant, was not as catastrophic as many had hoped, and it remains unclear how long it will take for the regime to fully recover. As the situation continues to unfold, one thing is clear: Iran’s nuclear program is far from defeated.
Beyond the battlefield, there are deeper political and strategic consequences at play. If Iran manages to quickly rebuild its nuclear capabilities, the international community could face a far more dangerous situation than before the strikes. The administration’s claims of victory could ultimately prove to be a mirage, and the potential for further conflict in the region remains high.
As both American and Israeli officials recalibrate their expectations, it is worth questioning whether these strikes were a meaningful step forward in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or simply a temporary pause in an ongoing game of cat-and-mouse. The true effectiveness of the operation may not be revealed for months or even years, as Iran assesses its options and continues its nuclear pursuits. But one thing is certain: the consequences of these strikes will reverberate far beyond the headlines of military success, raising critical questions about the long-term efficacy of force in curbing nuclear proliferation.