On June 25, 2025, President Donald Trump forcefully rejected a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment away that reported U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites achieved only a temporary setback of a few months, rather than the decisive “obliteration” he had claimed.
Leaked Assessment & DIA Findings
Trump’s Response: “Obliteration,” Not Delay
At the NATO summit in The Hague, Trump dismissed the report as “inconclusive,” accusing media outlets of twisting intelligence for political motivations. He defended the strikes as “very severe” and akin to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, stating they ended the Israel–Iran war.
He reiterated that “everything was obliterated,” warning Iran would likely not attempt nuclear development again. Trump’s top aides, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, echoed his stance, calling the DIA findings suspect and politically driven.
Leak Under FBI Investigation
The leak has triggered an FBI investigation, with the Trump administration condemning it as a “breach of trust.” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the report not only false but potentially treasonous—even as officials maintained confidence in their precision bombing campaign.
Political Stakes & Ceasefire
The scuffle coincides with what Trump described as a fragile ceasefire he brokered between Iran and Israel—an achievement he hailed as a cornerstone of his foreign policy legacy. NATO leaders pledged to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP, a move underscored during summit discussions.
Trump’s pushback serves a dual purpose: to maintain leverage in diplomatic negotiations and to reassure his politically conservative base that the strikes were successful and aligned with his “America First” doctrine.
What Comes Next
- A final DIA damage assessment, expected within days, will offer a more authoritative evaluation of the strikes’ impact.
- Iran may capitalize on signs of U.S. intelligence division, potentially accelerating covert nuclear rebuild efforts
- Political analysts suggest Trump’s rhetoric—equating the strikes with Hiroshima—may signal escalating military intent unless Iran halts nuclear progress.
Final Take
Trump’s emphatic rejection of the leaked intelligence reflects his desire to frame the strikes as both militarily decisive and politically successful. But as diplomatic and intelligence figures await the finalized damage report, the question remains: did the operation truly “obliterate” Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—or simply delay it?