The Administration Is Struggling To Back Up Trump’s Bold Claims On Iran Strikes

The Trump administration is running into a problem as it touts the U.S. strikes in Iran as an unqualified triumph: It hasn’t yet provided clear evidence to prove it.

The effort began after a preliminary classified U.S. intelligence assessment that leaked to the press appeared to undercut Trump’s assertions the strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program.

In the last 36 hours, Trump and his aides have sparred with the news media, rushed out new statements from intelligence chiefs to counter the leaked report, and called a press conference to detail the many years of planning that went into the strike.

So far, officials have not been able to publicly provide convincing evidence that the entirety of Iran’s sprawling nuclear program was destroyed — a conclusion that would likely take spy agencies weeks if not months to establish. Assessments they have offered are light on details and flit between ambiguous language about whether Tehran’s nuclear program has been destroyed or just experienced a major setback — a lesser achievement.

Moreover, in working to debunk the leaked assessment saying Iran’s nuclear program may have only been set back months, Trump administration officials have stressed that it is too early to evaluate the strikes — though that’s precisely what they are trying to do.

Here’s where the administration’s messages on Iran stand, why their case is proving so hard to prosecute and when we may know more about the status of Iran’s nuclear program.

The ‘too-early’ trap

In rebutting the leaked assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency — which reportedly estimated Iran’s nuclear program was likely only set back a few months — senior Cabinet officials have stressed the difficulty of compiling credible intelligence so quickly.

At a Pentagon press conference Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reminded reporters that the DIA report was a “preliminary and low confidence” assessment drawn up only a day-and-a-half after the attacks.

Paraphrasing from a copy of the assessment he held at the podium, he also noted the report “admits itself in writing that it takes weeks to accumulate the necessary data to make such an assessment.”

Yet Hegseth went on in the same briefing to do just that: “Because of decisive military action, President Trump created the conditions to end the war. Decimating — choose your word, obliterating, destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”

Nuclear weapons experts and intelligence analysts have argued that weeks or longer is a more realistic time frame to be able to make such a conclusion.

Intelligence agencies, international nuclear weapons inspectors, and independent analysts all have had near-immediate access to overhead imagery of the strikes. But they would need intelligence from other highly sensitive sources, including humans on site, to determine the full extent of the damage.

That could prove especially difficult given that Iran doesn’t appear keen to let the world know how much damage its nuclear program has suffered. Iran’s parliament voted Wednesday to suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Whither the uranium

Top Trump officials’ assessments have mostly focused on the strikes successfully hitting nuclear facilities that enrich uranium, manufacture uranium metal and produce reactor fuel.

Still, many suspect Iran still retains a large stockpile of heavily enriched uranium and uninstalled centrifuges it can use to make a bomb.

Satellite images taken in the days before the strikes show lines of trucks at two of the sites that were hit — Fordo and Isfahan — leaving open the possibility Iran smuggled out key components of its nuclear program before the U.S. attack.

When pressed by journalists on Thursday morning, Hegseth said that he was “not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be, moved or otherwise.”

And while White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said during prepared remarks later in the day “there was no indication” Iran moved any enriched uranium before the strikes, the administration hasn’t convinced skeptics it didn’t do that, either.

Senior Trump national security officials delivered a closed briefing to senators on the Iran strikes Thursday. Speaking with reporters afterwards, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said it was “obvious” the strikes didn’t destroy all of Iran’s enriched uranium.

“It was clear long before this brief, that some of the enriched uranium was never going to be taken out by a bunker buster bomb,”said Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Rafael Grossi, the chair of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said at a press conference Wednesday that it’s possible Iran's highly enriched uranium is "still there."

And even Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) indicated the stockpile may still be available to the Iranians. “It was not part of the mission to destroy all their enriched uranium or to seize it or anything else,” Cotton said. “Again, it's not a Mission Impossible movie.”

A nuclear program can be bigger than three facilities

Trump has claimed any nuclear effort by Iran has been halted, saying, for example, in a social media post Thursday: “It was my great honor to Destroy All Nuclear facilities & capability.” He has also said that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back “basically decades.”

Speaking at the NATO summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday, Trump even said a nuclear deal with Iran was no longer necessary because Tehran has been cowed by the U.S. strikes. “They’ve had it,” he said at one point.

But there is some suspicion that Iran maintains other, secret nuclear sites the American airstrikes left untouched. And even though Israel has killed scores of Iran’s leading scientists and intelligence officials in the war, Iran likely retains enough scientific and technical talent to build a bomb if it wants.

Some officials have appeared reticent to go so far as to claim that Iran no longer has the capability to pursue a nuclear weapons program, instead focusing more directly on the extent of the damage to the three facilities targeted over the weekend: Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.

The administration focused much of a Thursday press conference on the details of the strike operation itself and the technical prowess of the U.S. military.

Separate assessments put out a day earlier by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe each said the strikes “destroyed” key Iranian nuclear facilities, and that rebuilding them would likely take years.

But Ratcliffe stopped short of saying that Iran’s overall nuclear endeavor had been destroyed. Instead he said “Iran’s nuclear program has been severely damaged.”

Even the most hawkish Senate Republicans, who believe the strikes were an unmitigated success, note it’s unclear that Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been quelled by the strikes.

“Isn’t the real question: Have we obliterated their desire to have a nuclear weapon?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said after the Senate briefing Thursday.

Even so, the White House has insisted on sticking with Trump’s maximalist claims.

On Thursday, White House spokesperson Leavitt said: “Despite agenda-driven leaks and the fake news media aimed at undermining this incredible accomplishment achieved by President Trump and our brave fighter pilots, there is broad consensus emerging already that Iran's nuclear capabilities were indeed destroyed,” she said.

When will we know more?

Trump and other Cabinet officials have at times hinted at a more flexible definition of success — focusing on the immediate outcome for conflict in the region, rather than the direct effect on Iran’s nuclear program.

On Thursday, Hegseth pointed to the ceasefire between Iran and Israel — announced Monday — as proof that the U.S. strikes were a triumph.

“Step back for a second,” Hegseth said. “Because of decisive military action, President Trump created the conditions to end the war.”

Whether Trump really believes his own claims about “obliteration” may become clear in the coming weeks.

Trump on Wednesday signaled he’s interested in reopening talks with Iran.

If he and other Cabinet officials really have determined Tehran’s nuclear program is dead and gone, there’s no clear reason for things like secret nuclear sites, leftover uranium stockpiles or centrifuges, or the future of its damaged facilities to be major sticking points in the negotiations.

But if their recent talk is the bluster some of their skeptics believe it is, they’ll be under pressure to ensure the agreement really cinches the end of Iran’s nuclear program.

Amy Mackinnon contributed to this report.