https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/us/politics/iran-nuclear-sites.html

A preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran set back the country’s nuclear program by only a few months, according to officials familiar with the findings.

The strikes sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings, the officials said the early findings concluded.

Before the attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had said that if Iran tried to rush to making a bomb, it would take about three months. After the U.S. bombing run and days of attacks by the Israeli Air Force, the report by the Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that the program had been delayed, but by less than six months.

The report also said that much of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was moved before the strikes, which destroyed little of the nuclear material. Iran may have moved some of that to secret locations.

Some Israeli officials said they also believed that the Iranian government had maintained small covert enrichment facilities so it could continue its nuclear program in the event of an attack on the larger facilities.

Other officials noted that the report found that the three nuclear sites — Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — had suffered moderate to severe damage, with the facility at Natanz damaged the most. It is not clear whether the Iranians will try to rebuild the programs.

Former officials said that if Iran tried to quickly develop a bomb, it would be a relatively small and crude device. A miniaturized warhead would be far more difficult to produce, and the extent of damage to that more advanced research is not clear.

Current and former military officials had cautioned before the strike that any effort to destroy the Fordo facility, which is buried more than 250 feet under a mountain, would probably require waves of airstrikes, with days or even weeks of pounding the same spots.

>>1415707 (OP)
American warplanes did hit the same spots at least twice on Saturday. B-2s dropped 12 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs — often referred to as “bunker busters” — on Fordo, and six aboveground entry craters are now visible, according to Brian Carter, the Middle East portfolio manager at the American Enterprise Institute.

But many military bomb experts believed that more than one day of strikes would be needed to complete the job.

The initial damage assessment suggests that President Trump’s claim that Iran’s nuclear facilities were “obliterated” was overstated. Congress had been set to be briefed on the strike on Tuesday, and lawmakers were expected to ask about the findings, but the session was postponed. Senators are now set be briefed on Thursday, and a group of House Democrats issued a statement demanding that their chamber be briefed as well.

Since the strikes, Mr. Trump has complained to advisers repeatedly about news reports that have questioned how much damage was done, said people with knowledge of the comments. He has also closely watched the public statements of other officials when they are asked about the damage to the nuclear facilities, they said.

In a statement on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reiterated Mr. Trump’s early assessment.

“Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons,” he said. “Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly.”

Officials cautioned that the five-page classified report was only an initial assessment, and that others would follow as more information was collected and as Iran examined the three sites. One official said that the reports people in the administration had been shown were “mixed” but that more assessments were yet to be done.

>>1415708
But the Defense Intelligence Agency report indicates that the sites were not damaged as much as some administration officials had hoped, and that Iran retains control of almost all of its nuclear material, meaning if it decides to make a nuclear weapon it might still be able to do so relatively quickly.

Officials interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity because the findings of the report remain classified.

The White House took issue with the assessment. Karoline Leavitt, a White House spokeswoman, said it was “flat-out wrong.”

“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,” she said in a statement. “Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”

Elements of the intelligence report were reported earlier by CNN.

The strikes badly damaged the electrical system at Fordo, officials said. It is not clear how long it will take Iran to gain access to the underground buildings, repair the electrical systems and reinstall equipment that was moved.

There is no question that the bombing campaign “badly, badly damaged” the three sites, Mr. Carter said.

But initial Israeli damage assessments have also raised questions about the effectiveness of the strikes. Israeli defense officials said they had also collected evidence that the underground facilities at Fordo were not destroyed.

Before the strike, the U.S. military gave officials a range of possibilities for how much the attack could set back the Iranian program. Those ranged from a few months on the low end to years on the higher end.

Some officials cautioned that such estimates are imprecise, and that it is impossible to know how long Iran would exactly take to rebuild, if it chose to do so.

>>1415709
Despite claims of the sites’ obliteration by Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been more careful in describing the attack’s effects.

“This operation was designed to severely degrade Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure,” General Caine said that at the Sunday news conference.

The final battle damage assessment for the military operation against Iran, General Caine said on Sunday, standing next to Mr. Hegseth, was still to come. He said the initial assessment showed that all three sites “sustained severe damage and destruction.”

General Caine added that it was “way too early” to assess how much of Iran’s nuclear program remained.

Gen. Joseph L. Votel, the former commander of Central Command, said in an interview, that he had “a lot of confidence in the weapons systems used.” But he added: “I’m not surprised that elements survived. That’s why you do battle damage assessments, because everything can go as planned but there are still other factors.”

At a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Democrats also struck a more cautionary note.

“We still await final battle damage assessments,” said Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.

Military officials had said that to do more significant damage to the underground sites, they would have to be hit with multiple strikes. But Mr. Trump announced he would stop the strikes after approving the first wave.

U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded before the strikes that Iran had not made the decision to make a nuclear weapon, but possessed enough enriched uranium that if it decided to make a bomb, it could do so relatively quickly.

While intelligence officials had predicted that a strike on Fordo or other nuclear facilities by the United States could prompt Iran to make a bomb, U.S. officials said they do not know yet if Iran would do so.

It's a good thing American taxpayers are paying for all of this.

>>1415711
Sounds to me like the next plan may be another bombing run.
Fusion boosted bunker busters.

>>1415712
According to the Bush playbook there should be a bombing or an anthrax attack done by "sleeper cells" any day now to give a casus belli.

>>1415707 (OP)
>Trump Failed, Iran Still Able to Quickly Make Nuke
https://i.postimg.cc/FKBFFVM4/trumps-ultimate-paradox.jpg

>Noooo don't bomb them!!!
>OMGGGG you didn't bomb them enoughhhh!!!
You people are pathetic.

>>1415837
Retard got us into a war and then lied to the public it was over. It's not, and now he's renewed interest in using any of the products of this on the US.

Never should've gotten involved in this in the first place. See you in a bit when Israel starts claiming Iran is about to make a nuke again.

>>1415838
>It's not
Proof?

>>1415837
The only thing worse than starting a war for war goals that could have been accomplished through peace is not accomplishing those war goals through said war.

Now we're out billions of dollars for fucking nothing, dipshit.

>>1415837
>We're gonna bomb Iran's nuclear sites cause Bibi said they're gonna make a nuke in like two days for real this time you guys!
Please don't, he's been saying that for decades
>Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!
God damn it
>Hell yeah, mission accomplished! Okay we're done here bye!
Wait, Trump's own intel says the nuclear sites aren't even destroyed. What the fuck was the point of any of that?
>OMG do you want him to bomb or not make up your mind stupid libtards!

>>1415866
Wow that's a lot of cope! Who are you quoting?

>>1415869
>If I just call it cope, I won't have to acknowledge the substance of the comment
>Heheheh I'm so smart

>>1415870
Trump ended the war in a day.
I don't know how else to put that to make you understand

>>1415872
Trump got us into a war that I'll give a few months at most before we get dragged right back in when his ALREADY MUTUALLY VIOLATED ceasefire collapses.

>>1415872
Even if you actually believe this and aren't just shitposting, it still wasn't worth the cost of the resources expended.

>>1415872
>Trump ended the war
Iran didn't start the fucking war, nor did they fucking surrender. If Trump had somehow ended the war without joining it, that would have been great. Peace is good actually and fuck Israel. Trump ending the war in a day after joining it with no concessions from the other side just means it was a fuckup to even join in the first place.

No fucking war goals were accomplished and we're in a worse negotiating position than we were before the war and out billions of dollars. Trump doesn't get points for not fucking up as hard as he possibly could have.

>>1415877
>Iran didn't start the fucking war
In some ways they did by becoming non compliant with the IAEA inspectors and regulations

>>1415877
Oh, and also by enriching to levels far greater than needed for civil use. It's not fault but their own that the IAEA released reports saying they were non compliant

>>1415872
Trump said he had to bomb Iran's nuclear sites because Iran was close to building a nuke, which would be a major threat to the United States. This was, of course, in contrast with the IAEA and Trump's own DNI Tulsi Gabbard both saying there is no evidence Iran was actively working on a nuclear weapon. But the threat was so severe that Trump had no choice but to publicly disregard his own DNI and go ahead with the bombing.
Now Trump's own intel is saying the nuclear sites were not destroyed and more than likely will be operational again within a few months, and Iran moved the uranium they had already enriched out before the bombings. But Trump seems completely uninterested in taking additional action and is washing his hands of the whole thing.
So which is it? Is Iran having the ability to build a nuke a threat to the US or not? If so, why is Trump suddenly uninterested in doing anything about it? If not, why did we have no choice but to launch a bombing campaign on a sovereign nation and risk escalation into war?

>>1415881
>Close to building a nuke
>Actively building a nuke
These aren't mutually exclusive things. In fact, they are completely consistent with each other.

I've ignored the rest of your wall of text due to your lack of English comprehension

>>1415882
>No answer
Thank you, I accept your concession

>>1415882
>These aren't mutually exclusive things. In fact, they are completely consistent with each other.
They're also completely contradictory to Trump's own head of intelligence. So tell me, did Tulsi Gabbard lie under oath, or did Trump lie to us?

>>1415885
Building a nuke =/= having illegal secret enrichment facilities enriching uranium to near weapons level and hiding it from the IAEA.

Nobody ever has said they actively build a nuke. The closest claim was that they were on the verge of it, which was said by trump and is true

You need to learn English comprehension, I think your knee jerks so hard every time you read something about trump it flies right into your forehead and makes you a little bit dumber every time

>>1415899
>Nobody ever has said they actively build a nuke. The closest claim was that they were on the verge of it, which was said by trump and is true
And Tulsi Gabbard was asked "are they close to building a nuke" and said "No" a month prior. So Trump saying they WERE either means she lied under oath, or Trump lied.

Now again, which is it? Did she lie under oath, or did he lie to the US?

>>1415902
>And Tulsi Gabbard was asked "are they close to building a nuke" and said "No"
Source?

>>1415904
what's it like losing arguments every single day over and over

>>1415904
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/gabbard-iran-did-not-restart-nuclear-weapons-program/2025/06/19/39a5034f-5473-43f6-9535-252135e14a6f_video.html
>Iran is not building a nuclear weapon

>>1415909
>Not building a nuke, they were stockpiling the material for one though
Wow that's like what I said twenty times now. can you even read my posts?

What's it like having no English comprehension?

>>1415909
Thanks though for posting evidence of exactly what I'm trying to tell you, I wish you were just intelligent enough to be able to comprehend English

>>1415908
It's hard on my ego but it pays the bills. And I get to fulfill my biggest fantasy: larping as a white American

>>1415899
Iran still has the uranium and Trump's Intel agencies are saying the enrichment sites are still mostly intact.
If that's the case, why is Trump suddenly acting like the threat has been completely neutralized?
Either Iran being on the path to a nuclear weapon is a threat needing military intervention or it's not. If it is, why did we stop at one bombing? If it's not, why did we bomb in the first place?

>>1415911
>>1415912
>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tulsi-gabbard-wrong-iran-nuclear-program/
>When the president arrived in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Friday, a reporter asked him: "What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community had said they have no evidence that they are at this point."
>"Well then, my intelligence community is wrong," Mr. Trump responded. "Who in the intelligence community said that?"
>"Your director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard," the reporter answered.
>"She's wrong," Mr. Trump said, moving on to the next question.
Trump seems convinced they were building a nuke you fucking retards. Also, if stopping their uranium stockpile was the goal, we failed completely and utterly.

>>1415917
Maybe if they didn't want to give the impression they were building a nuke they shouldn't have had secret enrichment facilities enriching uranium to near weapons level, 5x what is needed for civil purposes?

Sounds like this could have all been avoided if they just stayed compliant with the IAEA and didnt lie to them and build secret weapons-grade enrichment facilities.

>>1415918
So did Gabbard lie then?

>>1415918
>Sounds like this could have all been avoided if they just stayed compliant with the IAEA and didnt lie to them and build secret weapons-grade enrichment facilities.
Man, if only some president put up a plan that did all these things and provided appropriate incentives for Iran to comply.
Too bad an orange retard deliberately destroyed it for no reason so Iran had no other option.
Its almost like he was working with Israel to create a reason to destroy Iran instead of working towards peace.

>>1415916
> If it's not, why did we bomb in the first place?
Because Israel wanted the US to bomb Iran. Nuclear weapons were the pretense.

>>1415921
And they've been the pretense for 20 fucking years. You'd think people would stop falling for "if we do nothing, iran will have a nuke in a year!" after it's been used 5 times over 2 decades, but...

>>1415921
>Nuclear weapons were the pretense.
Yeah it's just a total coincidence that the IAEA just recently reported they were enriching uranium to near-weapons level in the secret facilities they tried to hide from the IAEA

>>1415707 (OP)
You mean the DUI hire and Cheetohlini aren’t good at coming up with military plans or thinking strategically? I’m shocked!

>>1415927
The IAEA isn't feeding Trump intelligence, his advisors are, and many of them are zionists.
An argument could be made that Trump is less informed than we are, because Trump is relying on his closest advisors to provide him with the necessary information to make foreign policy decisions. Here, on 4chan, a lot of what we know is unfiltered, coming from individuals with opposed interests and political affiliations.

>>1415927
And this is where I say the director of the IAEA stated on record last week there's no evidence of Iran actively building a nuke.
And then you respond that no one's claiming they're in the process of building a nuke, it's the fact that they have enriched uranium and are on track to build a nuke that's the threat and basis for the bombings.
To which I ask if that's the case,why is Iran no longer a threat even though they still have the uranium, the enrichment sites were only damaged and and least one will be operational again in a few months, and Iran has publicly declared their intent to continue their nuclear program.
And that's as far as this conversational loop goes before it seems to stop abruptly each time.
Care to keep it going?

>>1415923
Last time they almost had a nuke we used a virus to destroy their centrifuges

>>1415931
>publicly declared their intent to continue their nuclear program.
Man, if they're publicly declaring their intent to build nuclear weapons, they really do sound like an issue

>>1415931
>Care to keep it going?
I'm honestly not sure what you want here, if you were arguing they need to be attacked again based on the reasoning used to attack them, then sure, I never argued otherwise

My point this entire time has been that you or whoever I have been arguing with are conflating "evidence of actively building a nuclear weapon" with "evidence of making all the components to build a nuclear weapon". The latter claim is true, but a weaker claim than the former. And they are not the same claim despite you or whoever I was arguing with trying to argue otherwise

>>1415935
we want you to stop posting, faggot. but you're literally a shill so you will be here every day

>>1415935
>if you were arguing they need to be attacked again based on the reasoning used to attack them, then sure, I never argued otherwise
At least you're being logically consistent, even if I don't agree with the logic.
We are not getting that same logical consistency from the Trump administration. The circumstances that were used to make the case that we were past the point of diplomacy and the only option left was immediate military action are still in place, but now suddenly they aren't an issue.
So why was the bombing necessary in the first place? (Rhetorical, not expecting you to repeat yourself).
The more likely scenario based on the circumstances in the region at the time to those of us not willing to give Trump or his administration the benefit of the doubt is Donald Trump ordered a bombing campaign against a sovereign nation, risking military retaliation and being dragged into another regional conflict, at the behest of Benjamin Netanyahu in order to help bring an end to a war he began by bombing Iran two weeks ago.
And at a time when Republicans are slashing government programs left and right with broad strokes and debating selling public land to pay down the debt, the idea of spending a few billion dollars on a bombing campaign ordered under false pretenses in service of an antagonistic, divisive foreign leader is particularly egregious.
>My point this entire time has been that you or whoever I have been arguing with are conflating "evidence of actively building a nuclear weapon" with "evidence of making all the components to build a nuclear weapon"
>>1415933
Attack!

>>1415940
>false pretenses
They weren't false. Iran was stockpiling uranium they were enriching to far above civil levels, they were de facto gathering together the components of a nuclear warhead and lying to the IAEA about it

>>1415837
you know whats worse than starting a war? Losing the war you started.

it is U who are pathetic.

>>1415943
Uranium which they still have, along with the salvageable enrichment sites and statements from Iran and other clear indications Iran's nuclear program will continue that I and other have pointed out over and over again.
But now the Trump administration no longer seems to be concerned about any of that.
Even though four days ago it was the justification for an immediate military strike.
The false pretense I was referring to isn't the uranium. It's Trump's motives for the bombings.

>>1415848
Cry more bitch sometimes things don’t work doesn’t mean anyone is at fault besides the 600 fucking feet of concrete and we delayed them a year maybe so it obviously did something.

>>1415948
I was told by a very reliable convicted felon that the enrichment sites were completely obliterated and could never be recovered, and that Iran is out of the nuclear business for good. Why would he lie about that?

>>1415952
You didn't listen very well.
Also I thought you lads loved criminals.

>>1415958
you're the one shilling for the felon anon

>>1415958
Think I listened just fine. I think you just don't hear what you don't want to hear.
>"I believe it was total obliteration," Trump told reporters speaking alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in The Hague, Netherlands.
>"I don’t see them being back involved in the nuclear business anymore," Trump said of Tehran.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/trump-iran-nuclear-program-years-rejects-early-pentagon/story?id=123185760
>Also I thought you lads loved criminals.
Never supported one running for president. Can you say the same?

>>1415959
Tell me your opinion on illegals being deported and I'll show you a hypocrite.
>>1415960
>I believe
Mhmm

>>1415961
i wouldn't mind if elon was deported

>>1415961
>I believe
>Mhmm
Weak, even for you

>>1415961
>Tell me your opinion on illegals being deported and I'll show you a hypocrite.
The irony is illegals are, by definition, not felons. Illegal immigration on its own is a misdemeanor.