A new US intelligence assessment, widely reported on July 17, 2025, indicates that last month’s airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities were less comprehensive in their destruction than initially portrayed by the Trump administration. While one key site was severely damaged, two others may be able to resume enrichment within months, challenging earlier claims of complete obliteration.
According to five current and former US officials familiar with the assessment, as reported by NBC News, the Fordo fuel enrichment site was “mostly destroyed.” This strike, which occurred around June 20-22, 2025, is believed to have set back Fordo’s work by as much as two years. However, the assessment reveals that the Natanz and Isfahan facilities were not as severely damaged and could potentially restart nuclear enrichment within several months if Iran chooses to do so. While 30,000-pound GBU-57 “bunker buster” bombs were used at Natanz, and Tomahawk missiles at Isfahan, officials knew that some deeply buried structures at these sites might be beyond the reach of even these powerful munitions.
Following the June strikes, President Donald Trump hailed them as a “spectacular military success,” stating that Iran’s “key enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly asserted that “Operation Midnight Hammer totally obliterated Iran’s nuclear capabilities,” a sentiment echoed by chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell, who declared Iran’s nuclear facilities “completely and totally obliterated.” However, an early assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), reported by CNN as early as June 25, 2025, suggested the strikes only set back Iran’s program by “months, tops,” with centrifuges largely “intact” and enriched uranium stockpiles not destroyed. Some intelligence even indicated enriched uranium was moved prior to the strikes. This initial finding has been reinforced by the more recent, detailed assessment.
NBC News also revealed that US Central Command, under General Erik Kurilla, had developed a far more extensive “all-in” plan. This option would have involved striking six sites repeatedly over several weeks, including more of Iran’s air defense and ballistic missile capabilities, aiming to “truly decimate” Iran’s nuclear program. President Trump, however, rejected this comprehensive plan, citing his foreign policy preference to avoid deeper entanglements in conflicts and concerns over potential high casualties on both sides.
Despite the nuanced assessment, some US officials and Republican advocates argue the operation was a success in changing the strategic equation, presenting Tehran with a credible threat of further airstrikes if it attempts to revive clandestine nuclear work. Israel, which conducted its own strikes leading up to the US operation, believes the combined military action set back Iran’s program by up to two years and has vowed to conduct new strikes if Iran attempts to extract buried uranium. Before the June strikes, Iran, having flouted restrictions since Trump withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, had enough fissile material for an estimated nine to ten bombs. Discussions within American and Israeli governments about additional strikes on the less-damaged facilities are ongoing if negotiations do not resume or rebuilding efforts are detected.
Officials caution that the current assessment is preliminary and subject to change as more intelligence is gathered. CIA Director John Ratcliffe had previously briefed lawmakers that Iran’s program was “severely damaged” and key facilities “completely destroyed,” with the metal conversion facility at Natanz requiring “years to rebuild.” However, the overall picture remains complex and evolving, highlighting the ongoing challenges in assessing the full impact of military operations on deeply entrenched nuclear programs.
