Ata ŞahitAccording to an exclusive report by CNN, based on seven different sources, the airstrikes conducted by the United States last weekend against three nuclear facilities in Iran failed to eliminate the core components of Tehran’s nuclear program and only delayed the program by a few months at most. This assessment, which had not previously been disclosed publicly, was prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) under the US Department of Defense and is grounded in the post-strike damage analysis carried out by the US Central Command (CENTCOM).
On the same day, The New York Times published a similar report, stating that while the US strikes sealed the entrances of the facilities, they did not destroy the underground structures.
In response to these two claims, US President Donald Trump harshly criticised the reports concerning the purported military assault’s success against Iran’s nuclear sites. In a post on the social media platform Truth Social, Trump labeled CNN’s coverage as “fake news” and described The New York Times as “failing.” He further alleged that the two media organizations had colluded to undermine a historic achievement and asserted that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been completely destroyed.
The rebuttals against CNN and The New York Times did not stop there. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt sharply responded to CNN with a post on the X platform titled “Fake News CNN Strikes Again,” stating: “The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran’s nuclear program.” Furthermore, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, in a statement on Thursday, strongly condemned CNN, The New York Times, and several other media outlets for breathlessly reporting on the Pentagon’s preliminary assessment of the airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear sites.
In light of these mutual denials, the primary question that naturally arises is: Who is telling the truth? And if President Trump’s team is correct, what motivates CNN and The New York Times to take such a risk?
What Did Other Official Authorities Say?
Following the US airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the most significant official response came from Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi. On Thursday, Araghchi said that the country’s nuclear facilities had sustained “significant and serious damages,” marking the first official acknowledgment of the extent of the damage caused by US strikes on three nuclear sites. He added in an interview with Iran’s state television that the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran was still “surveilling the damages and losses."
Similarly, Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in an interview with Radio France Internationale (RFI), did not explicitly refute the US claim that Iran’s nuclear program had been completely destroyed; however, he emphasized that the program had sustained substantial damage. Grossi’s assessment highlighted significant physical harm to Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities located in Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow.
Statements from Israeli officials further corroborate the positions of the Trump administration, Iran, and Grossi. In its initial reaction, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the US military attack as a historic victory in a video message. Netanyahu asserted that the Fordow nuclear facility had been entirely destroyed and that Iran’s nuclear program had been rendered completely nonfunctional and consigned to history’s scrapheap.
Additionally, Israeli sources told the press that the damage inflicted on the nuclear sites in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan was considerable. They reported that the 15-ton heavy bombs employed by the US caused significant destruction at the Fordow facility and suggested that these sites were unlikely to resume operations in the near future.
In other words, contrary to the claims made by CNN and The New York Times, there appears to be a consensus among Trump’s team, the IAEA, Israel, and Iran that the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities resulted in substantial damage.
Could CNN and The New York Times Have a Political Agenda?
Determining who definitively won the Israel-Iran conflict is a challenging task. When evaluating the outcomes of the war, it is an indisputable fact that Iran suffered significant and strategic losses. However, an important question that arises in this context is whether Israel achieved a complete victory and attained all of its objectives.
Considering statements made by Israeli officials, Israeli media, and the country’s military and security apparatus during the ongoing clashes, along with their claims and actions, it can be argued that Israel did not secure a full victory nor achieved all of its desired goals. It has long been understood that Israel’s primary objective was not solely to inflict severe damage on Iran’s nuclear program; rather, its other two strategic aims were to completely dismantle Iran’s ballistic missile program and to bring about regime change. Developments to date suggest that President Trump’s administration has impeded progress toward these latter two goals.
Indeed, according to a statement released by the Israeli army on June 27, after twelve days of conflict, Israel was able to destroy only approximately 50% of the rocket launch platforms located in Iran. Furthermore, there has been no regime change in Iran, and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei remains capable of broadcasting victory messages. This indicates, in effect, that the ceasefire currently in place is fragile, that Israel is dissatisfied with this status quo behind the scenes, and that it may target Iran again at any moment. However, given Israel’s dependence on Trump’s support, the question arises: can Israel launch a new offensive without his backing?
Taking into account Benjamin Netanyahu’s past actions, it can be posited that he possesses the capacity to undertake an unexpected attack independent of Trump’s approval. Yet, such a move would require a justifiable context. This raises the suspicion that the claims and leaks propagated by CNN and The New York Times might be part of a broader effort to create such a context. In other words, could these disclosures have been orchestrated to strengthen the hand of the Zionist lobby, which is aligned with Netanyahu and has recently been marginalized by Trump? Or do they serve Netanyahu’s interests by providing legitimacy to break the ceasefire?
After all, it is widely recognized that the effusive praise Israeli officials have directed toward Trump is not entirely sincere, and that Israel holds Trump responsible for its failure to achieve all of its objectives.
