Washington, June 25 (Alliance News): The United States military’s recent airstrikes on key Iranian nuclear sites caused only limited disruption and failed to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, according to an initial confidential assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
The findings, which contradict public claims made by President Donald Trump and senior Pentagon officials, suggest the strikes merely set Iran’s nuclear development back by a few months.
Citing four sources familiar with the report, US-based CNN revealed that the DIA’s Battle Damage Assessment—conducted by US Central Command—found that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium and most of its centrifuges remained intact.
According to these sources, the nuclear complexes in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan sustained only partial damage, largely limited to surface buildings and auxiliary systems such as power lines and uranium conversion centers.
The intelligence report sharply contrasts with the White House narrative. Both President Trump and Defense Secretary Pat Hegseth had earlier declared that the Iranian nuclear infrastructure had been “completely destroyed.”
Hegseth stated that Iran’s nuclear capacity had been “buried,” asserting that US B-2 bombers had dropped 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs that fully neutralized the sites.
However, the DIA assessment concluded otherwise. Two individuals familiar with the report told CNN that the majority of Iran’s centrifuges remain operational and that the underground enrichment facilities were largely untouched.
“The DIA’s conclusion is that the US only set Iran’s program back by a few months, nothing more,” said one source.
White House spokeswoman Carolyn Lovett immediately rejected the report’s credibility. In a statement, she said, “This is completely false.
It was leaked by an anonymous, low-level informant who is trying to discredit President Trump’s historic operation.” She added that the administration remained confident in the mission’s strategic outcome.
Despite these assertions, intelligence gathering by multiple US agencies continues, with discrepancies reported between the DIA’s findings and the views within the National Security Council and CIA. A full, consolidated assessment has yet to be released.
Meanwhile, independent experts are aligning with the DIA’s view. Nuclear arms analyst Jeffrey Lewis, citing satellite imagery, reported that while surface damage was evident at Natanz and Fordow, core enrichment facilities buried deep underground were not significantly affected.
“These sites were built precisely to survive bombardment,” Lewis said, “and the images show they could still serve as the foundation for Iran to resume its nuclear activities.”
At Isfahan, the strike was reportedly carried out using Tomahawk cruise missiles. These were chosen instead of heavier bunker-buster bombs, as the facility’s depth and structure rendered conventional weapons ineffective.
As a result, most of the damage there was also limited to non-critical infrastructure.
Concerns are now growing in Washington over the apparent intelligence gaps and the lack of transparency. Scheduled closed-door briefings in both the US House of Representatives and the Senate were abruptly canceled.
This drew criticism from Democratic Congressman Pat Ryan, who wrote on social media, “Trump canceled the briefing because he knows his claims can’t stand up to scrutiny.”
Republican voices also joined in the critique. Congressman Michael McCaul remarked that “the plan was not to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure completely, but to inflict short-term disruption.”
Meanwhile, Iran continues to project resilience. General Esmail Qaani, who had been reported dead during the strikes, appeared publicly in Tehran, further undermining claims of a successful decapitation strike.
Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has reportedly escalated internal reviews to evaluate how to respond to ongoing US pressure.
While President Trump repeated on Tuesday that “these facilities have been completely destroyed,” the emerging evidence paints a different picture.
Multiple US defense and intelligence officials suggest that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains largely intact, with even secret enrichment sites such as Parchin believed to be operational and not targeted.
The mixed signals surrounding the effectiveness of the strikes raise further questions about the strategy and goals of the US military action. Was it meant to fully eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat, or was it merely a warning shot in a broader geopolitical game?
As the dust settles from the dramatic escalation between Washington and Tehran, it is clear that the final verdict on the success—or failure—of the strikes is far from settled.
