White House disputes leaked Iran strike report as experts say real damage will take weeks to fully assess.

Administration Pushes Back on Doubts Over Iran Strike Impact

The Trump administration is locked in a new dispute over the aftermath of recent U.S. airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, as a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report casts doubt on the president’s assertion that the sites were “completely and totally obliterated.” The DIA assessment, circulated by media outlets, concluded the strikes likely set back Iran’s nuclear program by only several months, contradicting President Donald Trump’s public statements and triggering a robust rebuttal from White House officials.

The controversy follows a period of heightened tension in the Middle East, after President Trump approved the strikes in response to escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. In a national address, Trump declared the operation a decisive blow. However, the leaked DIA report, based largely on initial satellite imagery and early battle damage assessments, painted a more cautious picture, stating that Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile remained largely untouched.

Top administration officials and national security experts, however, urge caution regarding such early intelligence reports. “That’s one piece of the puzzle of how you would really make this assessment,” said Dan Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador and senior Pentagon official. He emphasized that a comprehensive analysis would require weeks of gathering multiple streams of intelligence—satellite, human, and signals intelligence—alongside possible site visits by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.

General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported that all three Iranian sites had suffered “extremely severe damage and destruction,” but acknowledged that a complete picture would take more time to emerge. Retired Navy Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery explained that the “low confidence” label in the DIA report is standard for initial assessments, reflecting incomplete information. “Low confidence means the analyst is not sure of the accuracy of their assessment,” he said.

Experts across the intelligence community stressed the complexity of evaluating the effectiveness of underground strikes and the need for multiple data sources. Rob Greenway, a former deputy assistant to the president on the National Security Council, stated that because so much ordnance was used—over 14 massive 30,000-pound bombs—“the targeted facilities have been so heavily compromised they are no longer serviceable.” He added that any future threat from these locations would now be well within Israel’s defensive capabilities, should further action be necessary.

Ongoing Investigation Into Intelligence Leak

As the debate over the strike’s true impact unfolds, the White House has launched an investigation into the leak of the classified DIA report. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that only a select group had access to the document and described the leak as a serious breach of national security. “We need to get to the bottom of it,” she said, vowing accountability and tighter procedures to protect sensitive intelligence.

Michael Allen, a former senior National Security Council official, predicted that the intelligence portrait would become “richer” as new information continues to flow in. The administration has reiterated that a final, high-confidence assessment will take weeks, not days, to complete. Until then, officials caution against drawing definitive conclusions from preliminary data.

The episode highlights both the challenges and stakes of interpreting fast-moving intelligence in high-pressure geopolitical crises. As experts and officials urge patience, all eyes remain on the ongoing analysis to determine the full extent of damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear program—and what it may mean for future U.S. policy and regional security.