The Battle Over Truth: Analyzing Conflicting Narratives on US Strikes Against Iranian Nuclear Facilities

by Dr. Hichem Karoui

GEW Assessment Report

Donald Trump asserts that the strike against Iranian nuclear facilities has achieved its objectives, while Iran’s Supreme Leader insists that the Americans and Israelis have failed to achieve their goals in striking the nuclear facilities, and that Iran will not surrender or give up its right to use nuclear energy.

In the United States itself, media reports based on information leaked from the Pentagon indicate that the US strike failed to achieve its objectives and that Iran still retains its uranium enrichment capabilities.
So what exactly happened? Who should we believe? And what information do they not want people to know?

This escalated into what became known as the “12-Day War,” with Iran retaliating through missile barrages against Israel and continued exchanges between the two nations. On June 22, the United States dramatically escalated its involvement by conducting strikes against three Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

Timeline of the Iran-Israel Conflict and US Intervention (June 2025)

The strikes targeted the most heavily fortified elements of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, with particular focus on the underground Fordow facility built deep within a mountain.

. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed these claims, asserting that Iran’s nuclear capabilities “have been obliterated”. The White House maintained that the strikes achieved “total obliteration” of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities.

 The assessment, completed within 24 hours of the strikes and marked with “low confidence,” indicated that while entrance tunnels were sealed, the underground facilities remained largely intact.

 Iranian officials maintained that their nuclear ambitions would continue and that the country would not surrender its right to nuclear energy.

 Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard similarly claimed “new intelligence” confirmed the facilities were “destroyed”.

Conflicting Assessments of US Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Facilities

 Intelligence reports confirm that entrance tunnels were sealed and ventilation systems damaged, but the extent of underground damage remains unclear. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that the facility suffered extensive damage, though the full scope cannot be determined due to its underground nature.

Natanz Site

The Natanz facility experienced surface impacts and tunnel entrance damage, but intelligence suggests that many centrifuges remained “largely intact”.

This facility had previously been damaged in earlier attacks, making the additional impact difficult to assess.

Isfahan Complex

Isfahan’s uranium conversion facilities were reportedly “completely destroyed” at the surface level.

. However, underground tunnels at the site were believed to contain stored uranium and may have remained intact.

Multiple intelligence sources suggest this material was moved from the targeted facilities before the strikes occurred.

European intelligence assessments indicate that Iran’s uranium stockpile “remains largely intact” and was “distributed to various other locations” prior to the attacks.

 However, the White House has denied these claims, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stating there was “no indication” that enriched uranium was moved.

The FBI is investigating those responsible for sharing the classified document with media outlets.

In an unprecedented move, the White House announced it would limit intelligence sharing with Congressional members following the leak, specifically reducing information posted on CAPNET, the system used to share classified material with Congress.

. This decision has drawn fierce criticism from Democratic lawmakers, who view it as an attempt to avoid oversight.

.

Congressional briefings on the strikes were delayed multiple times, with the all-Senate briefing postponed from Tuesday to Thursday and House briefings rescheduled to Friday.

. Democrats have characterized these delays as evidence that the administration is withholding critical information.

 The agency confirmed extensive damage at all three sites but noted that Iran likely moved nuclear material to undisclosed locations.

Nuclear experts have offered varying assessments. David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security concluded that the attacks “effectively destroyed Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program” but noted that “non-destroyed parts can be used in the future”.

Other experts emphasized that definitive damage assessments remain premature given the underground nature of the facilities.

The complete intelligence picture, including higher-confidence assessments, remains classified.

Underground Facility Status

The true extent of damage to underground enrichment halls at Fordow and other facilities cannot be determined from satellite imagery alone.

This information would require ground-based intelligence or IAEA inspections.

Location of Nuclear Material

The current whereabouts of Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile remains unknown to international monitors.

 This represents perhaps the most critical intelligence gap, as the material could be used to quickly reconstitute a weapons program.

Secret Nuclear Facilities

US officials believe Iran maintains undisclosed nuclear facilities that were not targeted in the strikes and remain operational.

The locations and capabilities of these sites represent a significant intelligence unknown.

 The timing of contradictory intelligence assessments and the administration’s response suggests potential politicization of the intelligence process.

Intelligence Community Divisions

The split between the DIA’s preliminary assessment and later statements from CIA and DNI leadership indicates internal disagreement within the intelligence community.

. This division undermines confidence in any single assessment.

.

Iranian Incentives

Iran has obvious reasons to downplay the damage while also needing to acknowledge enough impact to justify its retaliatory actions

. Iranian statements should be viewed with skepticism but may contain elements of truth

.

Independent Verification

The IAEA’s assessment carries the most credibility as an independent international organization, though even their access remains limited

. Nuclear experts’ analyses based on available evidence suggest significant but not total damage

. Second, the restriction of intelligence sharing with Congress represents a concerning erosion of democratic oversight

.

The available evidence suggests the truth lies somewhere between the administration’s claims of “obliteration” and Iran’s assertions of minimal impact

. The strikes likely caused significant damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure but did not eliminate its ability to reconstitute the program, particularly given the apparent preservation of highly enriched uranium stockpiles

.

Most critically, the controversy highlights the challenges of conducting effective oversight and maintaining public accountability when classified intelligence becomes a political weapon rather than an objective tool for decision-making

. The long-term implications for US intelligence credibility and democratic governance may ultimately prove more damaging than the immediate military effects of the strikes themselves

.

The question of “who to believe” cannot be definitively answered given the classified nature of much evidence and the clear political motivations of various parties. However, the pattern of delayed briefings, restricted information sharing, and contradictory assessments suggests that the administration’s claims of complete success are likely exaggerated, while the true extent of damage remains genuinely uncertain.

Initial Full Paper With Sources and References Here:

The Battle Over Truth: Analyzing Conflicting Narratives on US Strikes Against Iranian Nuclear Facilities