The Wall Street Journal reported that ongoing controversy surrounding leaked U.S. intelligence about an airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities has added to the ambiguity surrounding former President Donald Trump’s claims of success, particularly regarding whether Iran had transferred its enriched uranium stockpile before the strike.
اضافة اعلان
In the report authored by Michael Gordon, Dustin Volz, and Lara Seligman, the paper notes that Trump’s assertions about crippling and completely destroying Iran’s nuclear program contradict leaked intelligence, which suggests the program was only set back by a few months, not years or permanently.
However, the CIA later stated that Iran’s nuclear program suffered significant damage. The challenge, it said, lies in assessing the full extent of that damage—something only international inspectors on the ground can determine.
On Wednesday, Trump doubled down on his criticism of the intelligence leaks, insisting that the U.S. military had severely crippled Iran’s nuclear ambitions and dismissing reports that the program was only delayed for a short period.
The newspaper noted that this dispute over the extent of damage will likely trouble intelligence analysts and experts for months, as they work to determine the full impact of the U.S. bombing campaign.
Although there is substantial evidence of damage from the U.S. deployment of bunker-busting bombs by B-2 stealth bombers on the Natanz and Fordow nuclear facilities last weekend, the actual status of Iran’s program remains unclear without access for international inspectors.
Charles Duelfer, a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq and ex-CIA assessment director, said, “Damage assessment from afar is always difficult. That’s why people prefer having inspectors on the ground.”
At the NATO summit in The Hague, Trump stood by his initial claim that the Iranian program had been “wiped out,” and dismissed the CIA’s preliminary findings as inconclusive. A rare Pentagon press conference, announced by Trump on social media, is expected Thursday to address the matter.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe issued a statement backing Trump’s remarks but provided no additional details, stating only that there is reliable intelligence indicating major destruction resulting from the recent strikes.
According to Ratcliffe, “New intelligence from a historically reliable source indicates that many of Iran’s key nuclear facilities were destroyed, and rebuilding them would take years.”
However, neither the White House nor the CIA addressed what happened to Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium—whether it was moved prior to the strike.
Vice President J.D. Vance hinted in a Sunday interview with ABC News that Iran may still possess quantities of hidden enriched uranium. He stated, “In the coming weeks, we will work to ensure this fuel is monitored properly. That will be one of the topics discussed with the Iranians.”
Before the Israeli-American operation, Iran was believed to have enough fissile material for approximately 10 nuclear weapons. But Vance argued that without operational enrichment facilities, the uranium would be useless to Iran.
The Journal cited a source familiar with the leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, noting that the document clearly states in its opening paragraph that it was a preliminary assessment based on data available within 24 hours of the strike and not coordinated with other intelligence agencies. A full damage assessment could take days or weeks.
A DIA official told the paper that the report was “preliminary and low-confidence—not a final judgment.”
Experts and former officials say one of the key challenges in assessing the strike’s impact is determining whether Iran retains nuclear capabilities that could support weapons development. There is also uncertainty about the extent of damage to the Fordow uranium enrichment facility.
Another unresolved question is whether Iran moved its enriched uranium stockpile before the attack or recovered it afterward. There is also speculation that Iran may have undisclosed centrifuge stockpiles or nuclear equipment at undisclosed sites.
If any part of the program survived, experts warn, Tehran may now be more determined than ever to pursue nuclear weapons. Former senior U.S. official Robert Einhorn, who worked on non-proliferation under the Obama administration, stated:
“The destructive effect of the U.S. and Israeli military attacks may have only strengthened Iran’s resolve to acquire nuclear weapons and bolstered hardliners supporting militarization.”
Einhorn also raised the unresolved question of whether the U.S. and IAEA can be confident that none of Iran’s enriched uranium was transferred to secret locations.
According to people familiar with the matter, the DIA’s initial classified report concluded that the strikes had only delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions by a few months.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed Wednesday that the FBI is investigating the leak of the intelligence report to the media.
The Journal concluded that this disagreement reflects Trump’s long-standing tensions with parts of the intelligence community. In the past, he rejected consensus findings—such as those concluding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help his campaign.
This time, the conflict centers around Trump’s skepticism toward a preliminary intelligence assessment of a strike he ordered—something analysts say is difficult to evaluate without further information.
Typically, intelligence agencies share early-stage, low-confidence assessments across the intelligence community. These are then vetted by analysts, often including signal intelligence or foreign communications intercepted by the NSA.
To strengthen conclusions, DIA analysts are now reviewing surveillance data for any Iranian internal discussions about the extent of the damage.
Still, intelligence gathering and drawing a comprehensive picture of the U.S. airstrike’s impact is a difficult and slow process.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in Congress are demanding intelligence briefings on the Israeli-American attacks, even as the White House considers limiting information sharing in response to the DIA leak. (Agencies)
