Did the US Really Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Program?
Did the US Really Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Program? Intelligence and Experts Cast Doubt
President Donald Trump and top US officials have repeatedly claimed that recent military strikes “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, but new intelligence assessments and expert analysis indicate that these statements are dramatically overstated. According to multiple sources familiar with classified reports, the US strikes on three of Iran’s key nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—have only set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions by a few months, not destroyed the program as Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have asserted.
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), in a preliminary battle damage assessment, found that while the facilities suffered significant aboveground destruction, the core components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—including its stockpile of enriched uranium and most of its centrifuges—remain largely intact. The White House has dismissed this assessment as “flat-out wrong.” Still, the findings align with the views of independent nuclear experts and intelligence officials who caution that Iran’s nuclear program retains substantial capability and could rebound quickly.
The Strikes: What Happened and What Was Hit
On the weekend of June 22, 2025, US forces carried out a series of precision strikes targeting Iran’s most important nuclear facilities, using state-of-the-art B-2 stealth bombers and guided missile submarines. The operation deployed massive GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs—weighing up to 30,000 pounds each—on the heavily fortified Fordow and Natanz sites, while Tomahawk cruise missiles struck Isfahan.
Trump described the mission as a “spectacular military success,” claiming the strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed these claims, praising the US for its “bold, righteous, and historic” action. The White House and Pentagon insisted that Iran’s nuclear ambitions had been “devastated” and that the country would never recover its atomic capabilities.
Damage Assessment: Reality vs. Rhetoric
Despite the administration’s confident rhetoric, intelligence agencies have painted a much more cautious picture. According to sources briefed on the DIA’s classified report, the strikes caused extensive damage to aboveground structures, power infrastructure, and facilities used to convert uranium into metal for potential weapons. However, the underground infrastructure at Fordow—where Iran’s most advanced centrifuges are housed—remained largely intact, with only the entrance and some surface buildings destroyed.
Most critically, Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed. Sources familiar with the assessment told CNN and other outlets that much of the uranium had been moved prior to the strikes and that the centrifuges were “largely intact”. The DIA’s conclusion: the US may have delayed Iran’s nuclear progress by only a few months, not years.
“The DIA’s assessment is that the US set them back maybe a few months, tops,” one source told CNN.
Iran’s Response and Nuclear Resilience
Iranian officials have downplayed the damage, asserting that the Fordow facility had been evacuated in advance and that no irreversible harm was caused. Mohammad Eslami, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, has vowed to restore the nuclear program to full strength, stating that Tehran had anticipated and prepared for such attacks. Satellite imagery and on-the-ground reporting confirm that while there is visible destruction, the underground bunkers and critical equipment remain largely unscathed.
Iran’s ability to rebuild its nuclear infrastructure is well-documented. The country has a history of surreptitiously relocating materials and equipment, as well as constructing redundant facilities to withstand attacks. Experts warn that Iran could resume uranium enrichment at near-previous levels within months, especially if it has already moved key assets to clandestine sites.
Expert and International Reactions
Nuclear experts and international observers have expressed skepticism about the long-term effectiveness of the strikes. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has called for an emergency meeting to assess the situation and urged Iran to cooperate with inspections. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi emphasized that “resuming cooperation with the IAEA is key to a successful agreement”.
Dr. Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), noted that while the strikes dealt a significant blow to Iran’s credibility, they did not eliminate its nuclear capabilities. “Following the US surgical strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, the concern is what form the Iranian reaction will take,” Ozcelik said. “Iran’s credibility, internally and externally, has received an unprecedented blow, as it ultimately failed to shield its coveted nuclear programme. But the risk of escalation remains high, and Iran’s options are both limited and incredibly risky”.
Public and Political Backlash
The strikes have sparked intense debate in the US and abroad. American public opinion is sharply divided, with a Fox News poll showing 49% in favor and 46% opposed to Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, and a Washington Post poll finding only 25% support for US strikes, with 45% opposed. The compressed timeline for military action—Trump issued a two-week ultimatum before launching the strikes—has raised questions about whether diplomatic efforts were given adequate time.
In Congress, lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern about the lack of a clear strategy and the potential for broader conflict. Bipartisan legislation has been introduced to restrict Trump’s war powers, reflecting unease about the president’s unilateral decision to escalate hostilities. Democratic and some Republican lawmakers have called for greater oversight and transparency, especially after classified briefings on the strikes were postponed.
Regional and Global Implications
The US strikes have placed the entire Middle East on high alert. Iran has threatened to retaliate, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei signaling plans to strike US interests in the region and potentially close the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping. Such actions could trigger a wider regional war and disrupt global energy supplies, as the Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint for oil exports.
World leaders have called for de-escalation, with the EU, UK, Saudi Arabia, and Australia urging restraint. The US and its allies have moved to reinforce military positions in the region, with 40,000 American troops on heightened alert.
Technical and Strategic Limitations
The technical limitations of even the most advanced bunker-buster bombs have become a focal point of the debate. The GBU-57, while capable of penetrating deep underground, is not guaranteed to destroy all critical infrastructure, especially if Iran has taken precautions to protect its most sensitive equipment. Previous intelligence assessments had warned that Fordow’s underground chambers might survive such an attack, a prediction that appears to have been borne out by recent events.
Moreover, the effectiveness of the strikes is complicated by Iran’s extensive network of covert facilities and its ability to disperse nuclear materials. The DIA’s assessment notes that at least some of Iran’s highly enriched uranium was moved before the strikes and survived, while the centrifuges remain largely intact.
What Does This Mean for US Policy and the Future of the Iran Nuclear Crisis?
The gap between the administration’s claims and the intelligence community’s findings raises serious questions about the long-term viability of a military solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. While the strikes have undoubtedly hampered Iran’s nuclear progress in the short term, they have not eliminated the threat. Iran’s leaders have already pledged to restore their nuclear program, and the country’s technical and organizational resilience suggests it will be able to do so.
The US and its allies now face a critical decision: whether to pursue further military action, intensify sanctions and diplomatic pressure, or seek a negotiated settlement. The risk of further escalation is high, as Iran’s leaders must weigh the need to project strength and deter future attacks against the existential risks of provoking overwhelming US retaliation.
“Iran’s options are both limited and incredibly risky,” said Dr. Burcu Ozcelik of RUSI. “De-escalation may allow the regime to focus inwards to deter political instability, reinforce elite command and control, and manage the political fallout from ten days of war with Israel. But inaction carries its own cost—undermining Tehran’s credibility after years of vows to protect its nuclear program at all costs”.
Voices from the Region and the World
Iranian citizens have expressed outrage and fear in the wake of the strikes, with many expecting retaliation and further hardship. In Israel, the government has praised the US action but remains on high alert for Iranian reprisals. The international community is closely watching, with many countries calling for restraint and renewed diplomatic efforts.
In the US, the debate over the wisdom and legality of the strikes continues to rage. Trump and his supporters insist that the operation was a necessary and decisive blow against a rogue regime. At the same time, critics warn that it risks dragging the US into another prolonged and costly conflict in the Middle East.
What’s Next for Iran’s Nuclear Program?
The immediate future of Iran’s nuclear program remains uncertain. The IAEA is expected to play a key role in monitoring the situation and verifying any claims about the status of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran’s leaders have vowed to restore their nuclear capabilities. Still, the extent of the damage and the timeline for recovery will depend on a range of factors, including the availability of materials, technical expertise, and the willingness of international partners to assist or obstruct.
For the US and its allies, the challenge will be to ensure that Iran does not resume its pursuit of nuclear weapons while avoiding further escalation. This will require a combination of robust intelligence, diplomatic engagement, and, if necessary, targeted military action—but the recent strikes have shown that even the most sophisticated weapons cannot guarantee the complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.