Strike
Set Back Iran’s Nuclear Program by Only a Few Months, U.S. Report Says
Classified
findings indicate that the attack sealed off the entrances to two facilities
but did not collapse their underground buildings.
By Julian E. Barnes Helene Cooper Eric Schmitt Ronen Bergman Maggie Haberman Jonathan Swan
Reporting
from Washington
June 24,
2025, 3:20 p.m. ET
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/us/politics/iran-nuclear-sites.html
A
preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of Iran’s nuclear
sites sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse
their underground buildings, according to officials familiar with the findings.
The early
findings conclude that the strikes over the weekend set back Iran’s nuclear
program by only a few months, the officials said.
Before the
attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had said that if Iran tried to rush to
making a bomb, it would take about three months. After the U.S. bombing run and
days of attacks by the Israeli Air Force, the report by the Defense
Intelligence Agency estimated that the program was delayed less than six
months.
Former
officials said that any rushed effort by Iran to get a bomb would be to develop
a relatively small and crude device. A miniaturized warhead would be far more
difficult to produce, and it is not clear how much damage to that more advanced
research has taken place.
The findings
suggest that President Trump’s statement that Iran’s nuclear facilities were
obliterated was overstated, at least based on the initial damage assessment.
Congress had been set to be briefed on the strike on Tuesday, and lawmakers
were expected to ask about the findings of the assessment, but the session was
postponed. Senators are now set be briefed on Thursday.
The report
also said much of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was moved before the
strikes, which destroyed little of the nuclear material. Some of that may have
been moved to secret nuclear sites maintained by Iran.
Some Israeli
officials said they also believe that Iran has maintained small covert
enrichment facilities that were built so the Iranian government could continue
its nuclear program in the event of an attack on the larger facilities.
Officials
cautioned that the five-page classified report is only an initial assessment,
and others will follow as more information is collected and as Iran examines
the three sites at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. One official said that the
reports people in the administration had been shown were “mixed” but that more
assessments were yet to be done.
But the
Defense Intelligence Agency report indicates that the sites were not damaged as
much as some administration officials had hoped, and that Iran retains control
of almost all of its nuclear material, meaning if it decides to make a nuclear
weapon it might still be able to do so relatively quickly.
Officials
interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity because the
findings of the report remain classified.
The White
House took issue with the assessment. Karoline Leavitt, a White House
spokeswoman, said it was “flat-out wrong.”
“The leaking
of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and
discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission
to obliterate Iran’s nuclear program,” she said in a statement. “Everyone knows
what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets:
total obliteration.”
Elements of
the intelligence report were reported earlier by CNN.
The strikes
badly damaged the electrical system at Fordo, which is housed deep inside a
mountain to shield it from attacks, officials said. It is not clear how long it
will take Iran to gain access to the underground buildings and then repair the
electrical systems and reinstall equipment that was moved.
Initial
Israeli damage assessments have also raised questions of the effectiveness of
the strikes. Israeli defense officials said they have also collected evidence
that the underground facilities at Fordo were not destroyed.
Before the
strike, the U.S. military gave officials a range of possibilities for how much
the attack could set back the Iranian program. Those ranged from a few months
on the low end to years on the higher end.
Some
officials cautioned that such estimates are imprecise, and that it is
impossible to know how long Iran would exactly take to rebuild, if it chose to
do so.
Mr. Trump
has declared that B-2 bombing raids and Navy Tomahawk missile strikes
“obliterated” the three Iranian nuclear sites, an assertion that Defense
Secretary Pete Hegseth repeated at a Pentagon news conference on Sunday.
But Gen. Dan
Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been more careful in
describing the attack’s effects.
“This
operation was designed to severely degrade Iran’s nuclear weapons
infrastructure,” General Caine said that at the Sunday news conference.
The final
battle damage assessment for the military operation against Iran, General Caine
said on Sunday, standing next to Mr. Hegseth, was still to come. He said the
initial assessment showed that all three of the Iranian nuclear sites that were
struck “sustained severe damage and destruction.”
At a Senate
hearing on Monday, Democrats also struck a more cautionary note in challenging
Mr. Trump’s assessment.
“We still
await final battle damage assessments,” said Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island,
the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
Military
officials had said that to do more significant damage to the underground sites,
they would have to be hit with multiple strikes. But Mr. Trump announced he
would stop the strikes after approving the first wave.
U.S.
intelligence agencies had concluded before the strikes that Iran had not made
the decision to make a nuclear weapon, but possessed enough enriched uranium
that if it decided to make a bomb, it could do so relatively quickly.
While
intelligence officials had predicted that a strike on Fordo or other nuclear
facilities by the United States could prompt Iran to make a bomb, U.S.
officials said they do not know yet if Iran would do so.
Representatives
of the Defense Intelligence Agency did not respond to requests for comment.
Julian E.
Barnes covers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters
for The Times. He has written about security issues for more than two decades.
Helene
Cooper is a Pentagon correspondent for The Times. She was previously an editor,
diplomatic correspondent and White House correspondent.
Eric Schmitt
is a national security correspondent for The Times. He has reported on U.S.
military affairs and counterterrorism for more than three decades.
Ronen
Bergman is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, based in Tel Aviv.
Maggie
Haberman is a White House correspondent for The Times, reporting on President
Trump.
Jonathan
Swan is a White House reporter for The Times, covering the administration of
Donald J. Trump. Contact him securely on Signal: @jonathan.941
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário