Devastating Intel Leak Obliterates Trump's Iran Bombing Claims
Despite President Donald Trump's repeated insistence that the strikes had 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear program, the facilities in Natanz and Isfahan could resume nuclear enrichment in the next several months, sources told NBC News.
Only the nuclear facility in Fordow was mostly destroyed, setting back work by as much as two years, according to NBC.
Officials knew even before the strikes that the structures at Natanz and Isfahan were buried so deeply they were probably beyond the reach of even the massive 'bunker buster' bomb capable of penetrating Fordow's underground facilities, NBC reported.
The U.S. dropped the 30,000-pound GBU-57 bunker busters at Fordow and Natanz, but not at Isfahan, where officials relied on Tomahawk missiles to destroy surface targets.
In order to 'truly decimate' Iran's nuclear capabilities, Army Gen. Erik Kurilla, who heads U.S. Central Command, came up with an alternative plan that would have involved repeatedly hitting six sites, sources told NBC.
Trump decided not to greenlight the more extensive campaign, which would have lasted for several weeks and could have resulted in more deaths on both sides.
The 'all-in' plan would have required targeting more of Iran's air defense and ballistic missile systems, killing more Iranians and opening up Americans in Iraq and Syria to a greater threat of retaliation from Iran, according to NBC.
After being briefed on the plan, Trump—who campaigned on a promise to end foreign wars, not start them—decided to go with the more limited option in part because he was wary of involving the U.S. in a protracted military campaign overseas, sources said.
He has since claimed that Operation Midnight Hammer, as the strikes were called, accomplished in a single night what U.S. Central Command predicted would take weeks to achieve.
'We destroyed the nuclear,' Trump insisted in June. 'Iran will not have nuclear. We blew it up. It's blown up to kingdom come.'
His comments came a day after a leaked preliminary intelligence assessment from the Pentagon found that the bombings had sealed off the entrances to two of the enrichment facilities but had not collapsed the underground buildings.
The report also suggested that much of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium was moved before the strikes—a concern the United Nations' nuclear watchdog also expressed.
The latest intelligence assessment found more damage than the original report, according to NBC, but not the total annihilation that the Trump administration has been claiming.
The intelligence-gathering process is expected to continue for months, with assessments likely to change over time.
'As the president has said and experts have verified, Operation Midnight Hammer totally obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities,' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told NBC in a statement. 'America and the world are safer thanks to his decisive action.'
Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell also told NBC that all three of the bombed nuclear sites were 'completely and totally obliterated' and called reports to the contrary 'fake news.'
The Daily Beast has also reached out for comment.
Iran has said its nuclear program is purely for peaceful, civilian purposes, but it was enriching uranium at levels far above those required for domestic power generation. Still, investigators have not found evidence that the country was on the verge of creating a nuclear bomb when Trump authorized the strikes.
Late last month, Trump said he would 'absolutely' and 'without question' consider bombing Iran if reports suggested it could enrich uranium again.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This 'Then And Now' Picture Of The Oval Office Is Going Viral And Says So, So Much About The Trump Administration
Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images Donald Trump has completely transformed the Oval Office into his own gaudy, gold fantasy land. Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images It's A LOT. Andrew Harnik / Getty Images You've got the gold crown molding. Bloomberg / Bloomberg via Getty Images The fireplace is cluttered with gold statues. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images He's got gold coasters. SAUL LOEB / AFP via Getty Images And then there's a TON of these gold squiggly things all over the picture from the White House really shows how many gold accents have been added to the Oval Office. This is how it looked last year: michellelprice/Twitter: @michellelprice From this: To this: Look at all that gold!!! Well, since then, Trump has SOMEHOW managed to add even more gold. @JoeMyGod posted this "then and now" picture that is going super viral: From this: To this: "It's like the Dollar Tree version of Versailles," one person joked. "Which one seems more fiscally responsible...." another person asked. And this person said, "I hope that lovely fireplace can be restored with no damage." Thoughts on the renovations?! Solve the daily Crossword
Atlantic
23 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump's ‘Gold Standard' for Science Manufactures Doubt
Late last month, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a document detailing its vision for scientific integrity. Its nine tenets, first laid out in President Donald Trump's executive order for ' Restoring Gold Standard Science,' seem anodyne enough: They include calls for federal and federally supported science to be reproducible and transparent, communicative of error and uncertainty, and subject to unbiased peer review. Some of the tenets might be difficult to apply in practice—one can't simply reproduce the results of studies on the health effects of climate disasters, for example, and funding is rarely available to replicate expensive studies. But these unremarkable principles hide a dramatic shift in the relationship between science and government. Trump's executive order promises to ensure that 'federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available.' In practice, however, it gives political appointees—most of whom are not scientists—the authority to define scientific integrity and then decide which evidence counts and how it should be interpreted. The president has said that these measures are necessary to restore trust in the nation's scientific enterprise— which has indeed eroded since the last time he was in office. But these changes will likely only undermine trust further. Political officials no longer need to rigorously disprove existing findings; they can cast doubt on inconvenient evidence, or demand unattainable levels of certainty, to make those conclusions appear unsettled or unreliable. In this way, the executive order opens the door to reshaping science to fit policy goals rather than allowing policy to be guided by the best available evidence. Its tactics echo the 'doubt science' pioneered by the tobacco industry, which enabled cigarette manufacturers to market a deadly product for decades. But the tobacco industry could only have dreamed of having the immense power of the federal government. Applied to government, these tactics are ushering this country into a new era of doubt in science and enabling political appointees to block any regulatory action they want to, whether it's approving a new drug or limiting harmful pollutants. Historically, political appointees generally—though not always—deferred to career government scientists when assessing and reporting on the scientific evidence underlying policy decisions. But during Trump's first term, these norms began to break down, and political officials asserted far greater control over all facets of science-intensive policy making, particularly in contentious areas such as climate science. In response, the Biden administration invested considerable effort in restoring scientific integrity and independence, building new procedures and frameworks to bolster the role of career scientists in federal decision making. Trump's new executive order not only rescinds these Joe Biden–era reforms but also reconceptualizes the meaning of scientific integrity. Under the Biden-era framework, for example, the definition of scientific integrity focused on 'professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities.' The framework also emphasized transparency, and political appointees and career staff were both required to uphold these scientific standards. Now the Trump administration has scrapped that process, and appointees enjoy full control over what scientific integrity means and how agencies review and synthesize scientific literature necessary to support and shape policy decisions. Although not perfect, the Biden framework also included a way for scientists to appeal decisions by their supervisors. By contrast, Trump's executive order creates a mechanism by which career scientists who publicly dissent from the pronouncements of political appointees can be charged with 'scientific misconduct' and be subject to disciplinary action. The order says such misconduct does not include differences of opinion, but gives political appointees the power to determine what counts, while providing employees no route for appeal. This dovetails with other proposals by the administration to make it easier to fire career employees who express inconvenient scientific judgments. When reached for comment, White House spokesperson Kush Desai argued that 'public perception of scientific integrity completely eroded during the COVID era, when Democrats and the Biden administration consistently invoked an unimpeachable 'the science' to justify and shut down any reasonable questioning of unscientific lockdowns, school shutdowns, and various intrusive mandates' and that the administration is now 'rectifying the American people's complete lack of trust of this politicized scientific establishment.' But the reality is that, armed with this new executive order, officials can now fill the administrative record with caveats, uncertainties, and methodological limitations—regardless of their relevance or significance, and often regardless of whether they could ever realistically be resolved. This strategy is especially powerful against standards enacted under a statute that takes a precautionary approach in the face of limited scientific evidence. Some of our most important protections have been implemented while acknowledging scientific uncertainty. In 1978, although industry groups objected that uncertainty was still too high to justify regulations, several agencies banned the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as propellants in aerosol spray cans, based on modeling that predicted CFCs were destroying the ozone layer. The results of the modeling were eventually confirmed, and the scientists who did the work were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Elevating scientific uncertainty above other values gives political appointees a new tool to roll back public-health and environmental standards and to justify regulatory inaction. The result is a scientific record created less to inform sound decision making than to delay it—giving priority to what we don't know over what we do. Certainly, probing weaknesses in scientific findings is central to the scientific enterprise, and good science should look squarely at ways in which accepted truths might be wrong. But manufacturing and magnifying doubt undercuts science's ability to describe reality with precision and fealty, and undermines legislation that directs agencies to err on the side of protecting health and the environment. In this way, the Trump administration can effectively violate statutory requirements by stealth, undermining Congress's mandate for precaution by manipulating the scientific record to appear more uncertain than scientists believe it is. An example helps bring these dynamics into sharper focus. In recent years, numerous studies have linked PFAS compounds —known as 'forever chemicals' because they break down extremely slowly, if at all, in the environment and in human bodies—to a range of health problems, including immunologic and reproductive effects; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, and behavioral changes; and increased risk of prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers. Yet despite promises from EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to better protect the public from PFAS compounds, efforts to weaken current protections are already under way. The president has installed in a key position at the EPA a former chemical-industry executive who, in the first Trump administration, helped make regulating PFAS compounds more difficult. After industry objected to rules issued by the Biden administration, Trump's EPA announced that it is delaying enforcement of drinking-water standards for two of the PFAS forever chemicals until 2031 and rescinding the standards for four others. But Zeldin faces a major hurdle in accomplishing this feat: The existing PFAS standards are backed by the best currently available scientific evidence linking these specific chemicals to a range of adverse health effects. Here, the executive order provides exactly the tools needed to rewrite the scientific basis for such a decision. First, political officials can redefine what counts as valid science by establishing their own version of the 'gold standard.' Appointees can instruct government scientists to comb through the revised body of evidence and highlight every disagreement or limitation—regardless of its relevance or scientific weight. They can cherry-pick the data, giving greater weight to studies that support a favored result. Emphasizing uncertainty biases the government toward inaction: The evidence no longer justifies regulating these exposures. This 'doubt science' strategy is further enabled by industry's long-standing refusal to test many of its own PFAS compounds—of which there are more than 12,000, only a fraction of which have been tested —creating large evidence gaps. The administration can claim that regulation is premature until more 'gold standard' research is conducted. But who will conduct that research? Industry has little incentive to investigate the risks of its own products, and the Trump administration has shown no interest in requiring it to do so. Furthermore, the government controls the flow of federal research funding and can restrict public science at its source. In fact, the EPA under Trump has already canceled millions of dollars in PFAS research, asserting that the work is 'no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities.' In a broader context, the 'gold standard' executive order is just one part of the administration's larger effort to weaken the nation's scientific infrastructure. Rather than restore 'the scientific enterprise and institutions that create and apply scientific knowledge in service of the public good,' as the executive order promises, Elon Musk and his DOGE crew fired hundreds, if not thousands, of career scientists and abruptly terminated billions of dollars of ongoing research. To ensure that federal research support remains low, Trump's recently proposed budget slashes the research budgets of virtually every government research agency, including the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the EPA. Following the hollowing-out of the nation's scientific infrastructure through deep funding cuts and the firing of federal scientists, the executive order is an attempt to rewrite the rules of how our expert bureaucracy operates. It marks a fundamental shift: The already weakened expert agencies will no longer be tasked with producing scientific findings that are reliable by professional standards and insulated from political pressure. Instead, political officials get to intervene at any point to elevate studies that support their agenda and, when necessary, are able to direct agency staff—under threat of insubordination—to scour the record for every conceivable uncertainty or point of disagreement. The result is a system in which science, rather than informing policy, is shaped to serve it.
Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bipartisan Outrage Over Epstein Is Just What America Needs
The controversy over the mysterious ' Epstein Files,' which President Donald Trump's administration first pledged to release and then decided not to, has Democrats back in touch with one of America's great political traditions: anti-establishment conspiracy theories. Not only is this good for the party, it is also — dare I say it — healthy for US politics. Theories of this type differ from the more extreme Russiagate allegations against Trump (or Trump's infamous charges that Barack Obama was secretly born in Kenya) in that they are not narrowly partisan. As such, they are especially appealing to the kinds of people who are disengaged from politics and alienated from mainstream institutions. In other words, just the kinds of people who've flocked to Trump's banner over the past decade.
