Iran: Who Says What?
Where the players stand in the intelligence debate on US strikes
Welcome! I’m Tom Griffin and this is my intelligence history newsletter. Feel free to share this article with the button below.
A satellite image of Iran’s Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant, taken before last weekend’s strikes (NASA, public domain).
A week ago, as the US was preparing to intervene in Israel’s war on Iran, the arguments brought inevitable memories of the 2003 Iraq War. Following Monday’s ceasefire, the intelligence debate turned in a new direction, one with more resemblance to the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War.
The focus now is less on whether Iran’s nuclear programme was about to be weaponised but whether it has suffered a decisive blow. Some of the key contributions are summarized below.
Defense Intelligence Agency
One early indication came on Wednesday, when CNN and the Washington Post revealed details of a DIA report issued two days earlier. According to the Post, ‘the report found that while the Sunday strikes at the Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites did significant damage, the facilities were not totally destroyed.’1 ‘The assessment is that the US set them back maybe a few months, tops’, one source told CNN.2
Following the leak, the DIA told CBS News:
This is a preliminary low confidence assessment - not a final conclusion - and will continue to be refined as additional intelligence becomes available. We have still not been able to review the actual physical sites themselves, which will give us the best indication. We are working with the FBI and other authorities to investigate the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.3
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt characterised the leak as ‘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.’
However, the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell suggested that ‘it could equally have come from a pro-Trump person in CENTCOM or JCS who want more strikes on Iran.’4
The DIA is traditionally one of the most hawkish intelligence agencies, and CENTCOM commander General Michael Kurilla, has been among key US officials pushing for last week’s strikes.5
Central Intelligence Agency
The CIA has traditionally been a counterweight to Pentagon intelligence and Director John Ratcliffe was quick to issue a statement contradicting what he called ‘illegally sourced public reporting.’
CIA can confirm that a body of credible intelligence indicates Iran’s Nuclear Program has been severely damaged by the recent, targeted strikes. This includes new intelligence from an historically reliable and accurate source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years. CIA continues to collect additional reliably sourced information to keep appropriate decision-makers and oversight bodies fully informed. When possible, we will also provide updates and information to the American public, given the national importance of this matter and in every attempt to improve transparency.6
The Economist’s Middle East correspondent Gregg Carlstrom characterised this as an assessment for an ‘audience of one’ confirming President Trump’s priors without addressing the fate of Iran’s highly-enriched uranium or the viability of alternative facilities.7
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Officially, the key person responsible for co-ordinating the disparate voices of the US intelligence community is the Director of National Intelligence. However, as one of the most prominent anti-interventionists in the Trump Administration, Tulsi Gabbard has been weakened by recent events.
Earlier this month, Trump dismissed her testimony that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.8 Her statement on Wednesday read like a declaration of loyalty to the President.
New intelligence confirms what @POTUS has stated numerous times: Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed. If the Iranians chose to rebuild, they would have to rebuild all three facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Esfahan) entirely, which would likely take years to do.
The propaganda media has deployed their usual tactic: selectively release portions of illegally leaked classified intelligence assessments (intentionally leaving out the fact that the assessment was written with "low confidence") to try to undermine President Trump’s decisive leadership and the brave servicemen and women who flawlessly executed a truly historic mission to keep the American people safe and secure.9
Once again, It was The Economist which took issue, with defence editor Shashank Joshi noting that ‘not everything at Natanz and Isfahan was hit so how can these places - which are collections of disparate buildings and tunnels - be “destroyed”?’10
Gabbard’s statement was overshadowed by the threat not only to her own authority but to that of her office. Trump has considered abolishing the ODNI, which took over the CIA’s leadership of the intelligence community on its creation in 2005, and Congress is also targeting it for cuts.11
Congress
Gabbard was notably absent from Thursday’s Senate briefing on the Iran strikes unlike Ratcliffe, who attended alongside the Secretaries of State and Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy told the Independent that he assumed ‘that Director Gabbard does not agree with the assessment of the people in that room.’
Republican Senator Tom Cotton said afterwards that ‘without any classified information whatsoever, I think it’s safe to say that we have struck a major blow, alongside our friends in Israel, against Iran’s nuclear program.’12
While verdicts inevitably differed along partisan lines there was some convergence with Senators like Republican Kevin Kelly and Democrat Mark Kelly talking about a severe setback to the Iranian nuclear programme while shying away from Trump’s language of obliteration.13
Europe
Allies overseas also are among those privy to US intelligence, but European officials are said to believe that Iran’s enriched uranium is largely intact. ‘The US had not provided definitive intelligence to EU allies on Iran’s remaining nuclear capabilities following the strikes, and was withholding clear guidance on how it plans future relations with Tehran,’ the Financial Times reported.14
Israel
According Barak Ravid of Axios, ‘Israeli intelligence services believe U.S. and Israeli strikes caused "very significant" damage to Iran's nuclear facilities, with some officials perplexed by a leaked U.S. intelligence report that suggested otherwise.’15
Israeli military intelligence has concluded that ‘the damage to the nuclear program is not surgical but systemic - the cumulative achievement allows us to state that the Iranian nuclear project has suffered severe, wide-ranging, and deep damage, setting it back by years.’16
The Israelis are the pre-eminent opponents of the Iranian nuclear programme, so their divergence from the DIA assessment is significant. Nevertheless, they also have an interest in defending the success of an operation they initiated.
Iran
No-one is better placed to conduct a damage assessment than the Iranians themselves. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Thursday that ‘the losses have not been small, and our facilities have been seriously damaged.’17
The lesson of Iraq in 2003 is that threshold powers can seek to cultivate ambiguity about their capabilities even when that threatens to court destruction. Seen in this light, Araghchi’s statement looks like an admission of weakness, one that may provide a breathing space that suits everyone - for now.
IAEA
Monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency has been a key source of information on Iran’s nuclear programme since the JCPOA agreement a decade ago. The Agency’s director general, Rafael Grossi, has called for inspectors to be allowed to continue their verification activities in the wake of the recent strikes.18 That currently looks unlikely as the Iranian Majlis has voted unanimously to suspend cooperation.19
Iran is reported to particularly resent Grossi’s decision to follow up evidence from the Iranian nuclear archive seized by Mossad in 2018.20 No doubt, the disillusionment is compounded by the fact that Iran, a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has come under attack from an undeclared nuclear power.
Yet without a role for the IAEA, it is hard to see a stable settlement to the nuclear issue. The alternative may condemn the Middle East to an indefinite future of strike and counter-strike.
The physical damage to Iran’s nuclear installations is no doubt severe, but the damage to multilateral institutions could yet prove more lasting.
Michelle L. Price, Mary Clare Jalonick, Stephanie Liechtenstein and Sam McNeil /AP, Early US intelligence report suggests US strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months, Washington Post, 25 June 2025.
Natasha Bertrand, Katie Bo Lillis and Zachary Cohen, Exclusive: Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, sources say, CNN, 25 June 2025.
Cameron Henderson, The ‘jacked gorilla’ general pushing Trump to strike Iran, Telegraph, 19 June 2025.
Steve Benen, Pressed on Gabbard’s Iran assessment, Trump says, ‘I don’t care what she said’, MSNBC, 17 June 2025.
Natalia Drozdiak, Jamie Tarabay, and Nancy Cook, Trump Eyes Cuts to Top Spy Agency as He Downplays Iran Intel, Bloomberg, 27 June 2025.
Eric Garcia, Gabbard no-show at Senate briefing leaves gaping hole in Trump’s claim Iran’s nuclear program is ‘obliterated’, Independent, 26 June 2025.
Al Weaver and Rebecca Beitsch, Iran briefing leaves Democrats asking questions about Trump’s claims on Iran operation, The Hill, 26 June 2025.
Henry Foy and Andrew England, Early intelligence suggests Iran’s uranium largely intact, European officials say, Financial Times, 26 June 2025.
Barak Ravid and Zachary Basu, Israeli officials see "significant" damage to Iran's nuclear facilities, Axios, 25 June 2025.
Farnaz Fassihi, Iran’s Foreign Minister Says Nuclear Facilities ‘Seriously Damaged’, New York Times, 26 June 2025.
Update on Developments in Iran (7), IAEA, 27 June 2025.
Patrick Wintour, Iran’s parliament approves bill to suspend cooperation with IAEA, Guardian, 25 June 2025.
Yonah Jeremy Bob, Iran 'leaks' documents to discredit nuclear chief Grossi as it faces IAEA, sanctions threats, Jerusalem Post, 12 June 2025.