US military officials say Iran's facilities are ‘destroyed' after strike
In a Thursday morning news conference from the Pentagon, the two officials maintained that Iran's nuclear programme had been destroyed, echoing President Donald Trump's version of events.
But that contradicted a preliminary report, produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), saying the June 22 bombing campaign was a relatively minor setback for Iran's nuclear capabilities, which could be restored within months.
'President Trump delivered the most complex and secretive military operation in history, and it was a resounding success resulting in the ceasefire agreement and the end of the 12-day war,' said Hegseth.
'Because of decisive military action, President Trump created the conditions to end the war, decimating — choose your word — obliterating, destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities.'
Drawing reliable conclusions about the effect of the US strikes is difficult only days after they took place.
President Trump has insisted, however, that the US strikes delivered a 'devastating' attack. He has also told reporters that questioning his assessment of the strike was not only unpatriotic but also made the pilots who dropped the bombs 'very upset'.
While Hegseth and Caine spoke, Trump encouraged his followers on the platform Truth Social to watch their remarks, calling it 'one of the greatest, most professional, and most 'confirming' News Conferences I have ever seen!'
He also wrote that news outlets like The New York Times and CNN would be 'firing the reporters who made up the FAKE stories' on the Iran bombing campaign, though there is no evidence to support that assertion.
A day earlier, on Wednesday, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Ratcliffe said the US attacks in Iran caused severe damage to Tehran's nuclear programme.
'New intelligence from 'historically reliable' methods had shown that 'several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years,'' Ratcliffe said in a statement, which lacked further details.
A military assessment
The June 22 bombing campaign marked the US's only direct intervention in what Trump has dubbed the 12-Day War between Iran and Israel.
The conflict started on June 13, when Israel launched a series of attacks on military targets in Iran, killing several generals and scientists in its nuclear programme.
Israel argued the attacks were necessary to hobble Iran's efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran, meanwhile, has maintained it has never sought to create a nuclear weapon and instead uses its nuclear enrichment programme to create civilian energy. It responded with a missile barrage of its own against Israel.
The US has long been an ardent ally of Israel, but in the early days of the conflict, Trump avoided committing the US to any direct involvement. That changed on June 22, when he sent seven B-2 bombers to drop 'bunker-buster' munitions on three Iranian nuclear sites, including Fordow.
A ceasefire was declared a few days later.
But questions have endured about the efficacy of the US's intervention. On Thursday, Hegseth and Caine sought to put those questions to rest with a forceful presentation.
Standing in front of a poster with images of Iran's Fordow facility, Caine gave reporters a walkthrough of the bombs used in the attack, how the mission was carried out and who comprised the bomber crews.
He also played a video of one of the bunker-busting bombs in action.
'All six weapons at each vent at Fordow went exactly where they were intended to go,' Caine said.
He then offered a breakdown of what gave the US military confidence about the success of its mission.
'Here's what we know following the attacks and the strikes on Fordow,' he said. 'First, that the weapons were built, tested and loaded properly. Two: The weapons were released on speed and on parameter. Three: The weapons were all guided to their intended target and intended aim points. Four: The weapons functioned as designed, meaning they exploded.'
Defence secretary berates media
Hegseth, meanwhile, largely focused his comments on the media's response. A former Fox News host, he criticised his fellow journalists for 'hunting for scandals all the time' and failing to acknowledge 'historic moments' under President Trump.
When pressed by a reporter about what had changed in their understanding of the June 22 strike, Hegseth reiterated the Trump administration's position that sites like Fordow had been dealt a fatal blow.
'I could use the word obliterated. He could use defeat, destroyed, assess, all of those things. But ultimately, we're here to clarify what these weapons are capable of,' Hegseth said.
'Anyone with two eyes, some ears and a brain can recognise that kind of firepower, with that specificity at that location and others is going to have a devastating effect.'
Hegseth and Trump both denied on Thursday that Iran could have moved its stockpile of enriched uranium before the US strikes.
'I'm not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be — moved or otherwise,' Hegseth said.
Ambiguity remains
Still, there have been conflicting reports about just how much damage was sustained by Iran's nuclear programme.
The Financial Times on Thursday published a report saying European governments had assessed that Iran's uranium stockpile had been redistributed to sites outside of Fordow before the attack.
In his first public comments since the war began, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei also said on Thursday that Trump overstated the results of the strikes.
'The American president exaggerated events in unusual ways,' Khamenei said, adding that the US 'gained nothing from this war'.
By his account, the US bombing campaign 'did nothing significant' to Iran's nuclear facilities.
While Thursday's briefing with Hegseth and Caine offered details about the weaponry used in the June 22 attacks, analysts say it lacked evidence to justify the Trump administration's assertions.
'The presser on US strikes on Iran was an orchestrated narrative, very much focused on the storytelling,' said Al Jazeera correspondent Patty Culhane.
'I don't think we know the actual facts of the matter yet. They say they detailed how many bombs were dropped, how they went through ventilation shafts, but they didn't share any actual evidence that the facility was, in their words, obliterated.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why is Ghislaine Maxwell so central to Trump-Epstein conspiracy theories?
Late last month, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the courts to unseal grand jury transcripts in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, the imprisoned former girlfriend and associate of deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The request was an attempt to calm the furore after the DOJ announced in June that it would not release any additional documents from the investigation into the high-profile sex trafficker. Judges asked lawyers for Maxwell, Epstein and their victims to respond to the court by Tuesday regarding their positions on the release of the documents. As the deadline arrives and judges consider whether to grant the DOJ's request, we look at who Maxwell is and what the case is about. Who is Ghislaine Maxwell? Maxwell, the daughter of the late British media baron, Robert Maxwell, is the only Epstein associate who was convicted in connection with his activities. A former girlfriend of Epstein who later became his business associate, Maxwell was found guilty in December 2021 of helping Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison. What was Maxwell found guilty of? At her trial, four women testified that Maxwell groomed them as teenagers to participate in sexual acts with Epstein and sometimes participated in the abuse. She was ultimately found guilty on five of six counts: sex trafficking of minors, conspiracy to entice a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. Epstein himself faced federal charges related to sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy. Why are these records being sought now? Conspiracy theories have long swirled around Epstein's influence and his death. The wealthy financier, whose high-profile friends included current US President Donald Trump and powerful figures on both the liberal and conservative sides of the political spectrum, was found dead in his jail cell in August 2019 before he could stand trial. While his death was ruled a suicide, many prominent figures in Trump's MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement have long doubted that narrative, insisting – without firm evidence – that Epstein might have been killed to stop him from revealing the identities of some of his clients. Some government officials appointed by Trump in his second term, including FBI Director Kash Patel, have previously fanned the flames of those conspiracy theories. In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi said an Epstein client list was 'sitting on my desk right now to review', adding that she was following a directive from Trump to look at the files. But in July, Bondi's Justice Department issued a memo concluding that there was no client list and the financier had died by suicide – an apparent turnaround that sparked calls for Bondi's resignation from parts of the MAGA movement. Trump initially tried to dismiss that response from his support base and then tried to portray the criticism his administration was facing as orchestrated by opposition Democrats to distract from his supposed achievements as president. But the pressure hasn't let up. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had written a birthday note to Epstein in 2003 with the implication that the two knew each other better than the president has let on. Trump denied writing the letter and has sued the newspaper and the author of the article. But amid the mounting scrutiny, he also ordered Bondi to seek the release of all grand jury testimony in the Epstein case. Still, scrutiny over his administration's actions has only grown. Last week, Maxwell was moved to an all-women federal prison camp after a meeting with a senior DOJ official. Who are the people named in the Epstein case? In 2024, a court unsealed about 950 pages of documents that included the names of several public figures who had known Epstein well. The presence of their names on the documents does not in itself imply any wrongdoing – although some have faced accusations that they sexually exploited women. Some of the most prominent figures in the documents include: Prince Andrew: Johanna Sjoberg, who is one of the many women who have accused Epstein of sexual abuse, said in the documents that the British royal put his hand on her breast in Epstein's Manhattan townhouse in 2001. Virginia Giuffre, another of Epstein's accusers, also alleged that Andrew sexually abused her two decades ago when she was 17, an allegation the prince called baseless. Giuffre's lawsuit against Andrew was settled in 2022. Alan Dershowitz: An unnamed accuser said Epstein 'required' her to have sexual relations with the Harvard University law professor on multiple occasions when she was a minor. David Copperfield: Sjoberg testified to meeting the American magician at one of Epstein's houses. She added that she observed him to be a friend of Epstein's. Bill Clinton: While Sjoberg said she did not meet the former US president, she testified that Epstein said to her: 'Clinton likes them young,' apparently referring to girls. Clinton has repeatedly rejected all allegations that he was involved in anything unlawful and has said he had no interactions with Epstein for several years before the financier's arrest. Trump: Sjoberg mentioned an incident when she flew with Epstein, Giuffre and a few others on a plane from Palm Beach, Florida, in 2001. When the plane was unable to land in New York due to a storm, they had to land in Atlantic City and went to one of Trump's casinos. Why does it matter whether these trial transcripts are unsealed? The documents could show the information that the grand jury had before it while deliberating the case. Bondi's DOJ said in a filing that the transcripts contain nothing that is not already known publicly. It could help Trump and his team beat back accusations from the president's base that they have anything to hide. Is Maxwell going to testify to Congress? The House of Representatives Oversight Committee subpoenaed Maxwell in late July, seeking her deposition on Monday. Maxwell's lawyer has said she is willing to testify before Congress. But the committee has since said it is willing to postpone Maxwell's deposition while the Supreme Court decides whether to take up her appeal against her 2021 conviction.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What is the missile treaty Russia has walked out of – and why?
Russia on Monday announced it will stop abiding by a decades-old nuclear missile treaty with the United States, raising fears of the return of a Cold War-style arms race. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, signed in 1987, had put a moratorium on the deployment of short and medium-range missiles between the world's leading military powers. US President Donald Trump withdrew from the treaty in 2019, during his first term. Russia remained part of the agreement until Monday. It had pledged not to deploy such weapons as long as Washington did not do so – though the US has repeatedly accused Moscow of violating the pact. The Russian move comes days after Trump ordered the repositioning of two nuclear submarines in response to what he called 'threatening comments' made by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, currently deputy chair of Russia's Security Council. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has ramped up pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. He has also targeted India with tariffs and threats for buying Russian oil. Meanwhile, the US special envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, is scheduled to visit Moscow this week as part of efforts to end the Ukraine-Russia war. So why has the Kremlin withdrawn from the treaty, and will it affect defence agreements between two of the major powers? What is the INF disarmament treaty? The treaty was inked by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, ending the deadlock of the Cold War arms race. It banned possessing, producing or test-flying ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500km (311 to 3,418 miles). More than 2,600 missiles from both sides were destroyed as part of the treaty that covers both nuclear and conventional warheads. It does not cover air-launched or sea-launched weapons. Washington demolished 846, and Moscow 1,846 as part of the disarmament efforts. What justification did Russia give for withdrawing from the decades-old treaty? Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Monday cited the movement of US missile platforms in Europe, the Philippines and Australia as a direct threat to Moscow's security. 'Since the situation is developing towards the actual deployment of US-made land-based medium- and short-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, the Russian Foreign Ministry notes that the conditions for maintaining a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar weapons have disappeared,' the ministry said in its statement. The ministry said that Moscow would end the moratorium to maintain strategic balance and counter the new threat. Medvedev, the former president, said the Russian decision is the result of NATO countries' 'anti-Russian policy'. 'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps,' he posted on X on Monday. Medvedev was also engaged in a heated social media exchange with Trump last week after the US president served an ultimatum to Russia to end the war in 10 days. In response, Trump on Friday ordered two nuclear submarines to be moved to 'the appropriate regions'. The Kremlin has, however, urged caution on 'nuclear rhetoric'. 'It is obvious that American submarines are already on combat duty. This is an ongoing process, that's the first thing,' Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters. 'But in general, of course, we would not want to get involved in such a controversy and would not want to comment on it in any way,' he added. 'Of course, we believe that everyone should be very, very careful with nuclear rhetoric.' Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had in December warned against what he called 'destabilising actions' by the US and its NATO allies. Russia has also threatened to respond against a planned deployment of US missiles in Germany from 2026. When did the US withdraw from the treaty and why? The US withdrew from the INF treaty in 2019 during Trump's first term, citing Russian non-compliance. Trump had accused Moscow of breaching the treaty by developing and deploying the land-based, nuclear-capable Novator 9M729 missile system, dubbed SSC-X-8 by NATO. Moscow said the missile's range (500km) was shorter than the threshold set in the 1987 treaty. Trump had also cited the development of such missiles by China, which was not a party to the agreement. Under former US President Barack Obama, Trump's predecessor, Washington had moved to boost its military capabilities in the Asia Pacific to counter China's military power. But during his first seven months in power, Trump has largely been consumed by his tariff wars against allies and rivals alike. He has rolled back a steep tariff he had imposed on China in early April, even as a report by US intelligence agencies in March said that Beijing is now the US's top military and cyber-threat. And in recent days, he has turned his attention to Russia, trying to pressure it to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine. The West believes that Russia's Oreshnik ballistic missile – which it fired in Ukraine last November – violates the INF treaty. The missile has a range of 500km (311 miles). Last week, Putin announced the deployment of the missile in Belarus, which shares a 1,084km (674 miles) border with Ukraine. Russia also revamped its nuclear doctrine last year, formally lowering its threshold for use of nuclear weapons. Which other disarmament agreements have the two countries withdrawn from? The US and the Soviet Union – the two most militarised nations at the time – were engaged in an arms race until the collapse of the communist nation in 1991. The two sides, however, signed a number of agreements, such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the INF, as part of arms control measures. President George W Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, which was aimed at keeping Russia and the US from creating missile defences. During his first term in office, Trump also withdrew from the 1992 Open Skies Treaty in 2020. Two years later, Russia followed suit, walking out of the treaty that allowed countries to fly over each other's territory to conduct unarmed observation flights. Which security agreements are still in place between the US and Russia? The New START Treaty, which stands for 'Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty', remains the last major arms control agreement between Russia and the US. The treaty signed in 2010 caps the number of strategic nuclear warheads the two countries can deploy. It came into force in February 2011. Under the agreement, the two sides committed to the following: Deploying no more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads and a maximum of 700 long-range missiles and bombers. A limit of 800 intercontinental ballistic missiles in deployment. Each side can conduct up to 18 inspections of strategic nuclear weapons sites yearly to ensure the other has not breached the treaty's limits. But in 2023, Putin announced Moscow was suspending its participation in the pact, accusing Washington of non-compliance with its provisions and of trying to undermine Russia's national security. That treaty expires next year. The Russian decision came months after the US stopped exchanging data on its nuclear weapons stockpiles under the New START Treaty.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
India accuses US, EU of Russia trade double standards: Who is right?
India on Monday hit back at the United States and European Union over sanctions, tariffs and threats that it has faced from them in recent days over its purchase of Russian oil amid the war on Ukraine. New Delhi accused the US and EU of themselves importing substantial volumes of goods – including energy in the case of Europe – from Russia, while punishing India. India's strongest pushback yet, against mounting pressure from Washington and Brussels on trade and its ties with Russia, came hours after US President Donald Trump threatened to significantly increase tariffs he had previously announced against Indian goods. Trump had last week imposed a 25 percent tariff on imports from India, which is expected to kick in from August 7. In a Monday social media post, however, he said he 'will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA' because of India's imports of Russian crude. In late July, the EU also slapped sanctions on Nayara, one of India's two big private oil refiners, which is Russian-majority owned. The bloc also banned the import of refined oil made from Russian crude, again hurting Indian refiners. Until Monday night, India's response had been muted. That has now changed. Two hours after Trump's latest announcement, New Delhi issued a statement accusing the US and EU of double standards and of, in fact, quietly encouraging India to buy Russian crude earlier. As India's relations with the West – otherwise warm and growing until recently – now fray over its purchase of Russian energy, how true are New Delhi's claims that the West is as guilty of enabling the Kremlin's war machine as those it blames? What did India say on Monday? After hesitating for days to publicly take on Washington and Brussels directly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government issued a terse statement on August 4, calling the targeting of India 'unjustified and unreasonable'. 'Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security,' Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, in words that suggest New Delhi is in no mood to back down. But Jaiswal also directly pushed back against suggestions from the US and EU that India – in buying large volumes of Russian crude – had acted in a way that broke with the West's own behaviour. 'In fact, India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict,' Jaiswal said, referring to Russia's full-fledged invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. 'The United States at that time actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets' stability,' he added. He said India's decision to import Russian oil was 'meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer'. 'However, it is revealing that the very nations criticising India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia,' he added. The EU, he said, had traded more with Russia in goods in 2024 than India had. 'European imports of LNG in 2024, in fact, reached a record 16.5 million tonnes, surpassing the last record of 15.21 million tonnes in 2022,' Jaiswal said. The US, meanwhile, 'continues to import from Russia uranium hexafluoride for its nuclear industry, palladium for its EV industry, fertilisers as well as chemicals,' the spokesperson said. India's response is not surprising, said Biswajit Dhar, a trade economist who has been involved with multiple Indian trade negotiations. 'The aggressiveness that the Trump administration has shown – there had to be some reaction from India,' he told Al Jazeera. 'For a sovereign country to hear this kind of a threat from another country is unacceptable.' How significant are the US, EU sanctions and tariffs against India? India's pushback reflects just how much is at stake for its economy. The US is India's largest export destination: Americans bought $87bn worth of Indian goods in 2024. By contrast, India imported $41bn worth of US goods last year, leading to a large $46bn trade deficit for the US. Trump's earlier threat of 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods was already threatening to dramatically disrupt that trade. His announcement of even higher tariffs could bleed India's export revenue further. Brussels' decision to bar the import of refined petroleum sourced from Russian crude could also batter the profits of Indian refineries. According to market intelligence firm S&P Global, Indian exports of petroleum products to Europe have jumped from $5.9bn in 2019 to $20.5bn, largely because of India's ability to buy subsidised Russian oil, refine it, and then sell it to the West. But stopping the purchase of Russian oil would come with its costs: After the US and Europe imposed tough sanctions on Moscow over its war on Ukraine, Russia offered discounted crude to India. The EU also introduced price caps on Russian oil shipped by European tankers. As a result, India saved billions of dollars, with Russia becoming its biggest source of imported crude. For India, say experts, it isn't just the economic calculations that make the recent threats and sanctions problematic. The West is 'just changing goalposts', Anil Trigunayat, a retired Indian diplomat, told Al Jazeera. 'So, India is just showing them the mirror with facts and figures now.' Did the US and EU encourage India to buy Russian oil until now? Trump, in his latest post targeting India, claimed that 'they don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine.' India is arguing that the same accusations levelled against it hold true against the US and EU – and that they actually acquiesced to New Delhi buying Russian oil when the West no longer wanted to. 'They (India) bought Russian oil because we wanted someone to buy Russian oil at a price cap – that was not a violation or anything, that was actually the design of the policy, because as a commodity, we did not want the price of oil to go up,' Eric Garcetti, the US ambassador to India under former President Joe Biden, said at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations in May 2024. 'They fulfilled that.' "India brought Russian Oil, because we wanted somebody to buy Russian oil…", says US ambassador Garcetti on India buying Russian oil ; Adds,'no Price Cap violation, we did not want oil prices to go up..' — Sidhant Sibal (@sidhant) May 11, 2024 The logic was simple: If no one had bought Russian oil, that would have shrunk the total available oil supply with the same global demand, driving up costs. As Garcetti pointed out, Indian purchases of Russian crude helped avoid that – while allowing the West to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. Until July, the EU, too, had not imposed any restrictions on the import of petroleum products sourced from Russian crude. Is the West trading more with Russia than India is? That's the other major claim from India. And the facts suggest that New Delhi is right. According to the EU, its total trade with Russia was worth 67.5 billion euros ($77.9 bn) in 2024. India's total trade with Russia in 2024-25 was worth $68.7bn. To be sure, Europe's trade with Russia has fallen sharply, from 257.5 billion euros in 2021, before the invasion of Ukraine, while India's trade with Russia has surged from about $10bn before the COVID-19 pandemic. But data shows that the bloc continues to buy Russian gas. Since the start of the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the grouping has paid Moscow $105.6bn for gas imports – an amount equivalent to 75 percent of Russia's 2024 military budget – according to the Finnish think-tank, Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, which has been tracking Russian energy trade through the war. In 2024, EU imports of Russian LNG rose 9 percent compared with the year before. Mineral fuels make up almost two-thirds of EU imports from Russia, followed by food, raw materials, machinery and transport equipment, according to the bloc. And the US does indeed still import a range of chemicals from Russia, as Jaiswal claimed. Total Russia-US trade in 2024 stood at $5.2bn, according to the US Trade Representative's office – though the numbers are down significantly from 2021, when their trade in goods stood at $36bn. Given this backdrop, the Indian foreign ministry was 'absolutely right to call out the US and EU', Jayati Ghosh, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Al Jazeera. 'They are still importing from Russia. They're allowed to do it, we are not. That's ridiculous.' Is this all a trade negotiating tactic? Some Indian experts believe that the threats and tariffs from Trump are bargaining measures aimed at securing a trade deal with India that is favourable to the US. The two countries have been locked in negotiations over a trade agreement to minimise Trump's tariffs but have yet to agree on a pact, even though India has cut tariffs on several US imports. A key sticking point is agriculture, where India has long imposed high tariffs to protect its farm sector, which represents about half of the country's population. 'The way the Trump administration has been demanding that India open its market to US agri-business – that's a no-go for India,' Dhar said. 'Our small farmers will face a serious adverse situation; so it's economically and politically completely unacceptable to India.' Ghosh echoed those sentiments. 'There's no question of giving in on agriculture,' she said. 'In India, you cannot give in and allow US heavily subsidised multinational conglomerates to invade our markets, when a majority of our population still depends on agriculture for a livelihood.' But in recent weeks, Trump has also tried to ramp up pressure on Russia to agree to a ceasefire deal with Ukraine, and choking Moscow's oil exports would make it harder for Russian President Vladimir Putin to sustain his economy. On Monday, Trump's Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller accused India of 'financing this (Russia's) war'.
