Disputed Claims Emerge Over U.S. Airstrikes on Iranian Nuclear Sites as Tensions Rise
Fresh controversy has erupted over the true impact of recent U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, with discrepancies between former President Donald Trump’s triumphant declarations and more cautious assessments from both Israeli officials and U.S. intelligence agencies.
Trump, speaking confidently at the recent NATO summit, asserted that the strikes—part of Operation Midnight Hammer—had “completely obliterated” Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities.
He further claimed that Israeli intelligence agents had confirmed the destruction on the ground, describing the mission as a historic setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
But Israeli lawmaker Aryeh Deri offered a different account. In an interview with ultra-Orthodox Israeli media, Deri stated unequivocally that.
no Israeli operatives have inspected Fordow post-strike, casting doubt on Trump’s assertion of complete devastation. Deri’s admission directly contradicts Trump’s claims of Israeli corroboration and raises questions about the reliability of post-strike assessments.
Satellite imagery appears to show visible damage at several Iranian sites, but the extent of that damage remains unclear. Israeli National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi acknowledged that facilities like Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak suffered significant hits, but stopped short of declaring Fordow out of commission entirely.
“While there’s reason to believe Fordow operations have been disrupted,” Hanegbi said, “we cannot confirm full destruction without physical verification.”
Meanwhile, leaked internal reports from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) have added further skepticism to Trump’s narrative.
According to sources familiar with the classified material, the agency has “low confidence” that Iran’s uranium enrichment program has been significantly impaired. These reports suggest the regime may have relocated vital materials or equipment in anticipation of the strike, thereby minimizing long-term setbacks.
The leaks themselves have become the focus of a high-level security investigation. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff denounced the disclosures as “acts of betrayal,” and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that the FBI is actively probing the origin of the leaks, amid concerns of internal sabotage or politically motivated whistleblowing.
The growing disparity between Trump’s public messaging, Israeli government assessments, and the intelligence community’s internal evaluations has fueled anxiety among U.S. allies and watchdog groups. Analysts warn that political spin may be overshadowing objective analysis, further complicating global diplomatic efforts.
Conclusion
The fallout from the U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites reveals deep fault lines in both intelligence interpretation and political communication. While Trump champions the mission as a historic triumph, contradictory statements from Israeli officials and cautious DIA evaluations paint a murkier picture.
As investigations continue and pressure mounts for clarity, the situation highlights not only the complexities of modern warfare and intelligence gathering but also the political costs of premature declarations in high-stakes global conflict.