Trump's Desperate Effort to Convince globe about the Demolition of Iran's Nuclear Arsenal
Trump's insistence on Iran's obliterated nuclear program boils down to two main reasons:
First off, Trump's presidency thrives on portraying him as a towering, unique, invincible leader. Anything contradicting this image is unwelcome.
Secondly, any evidence suggesting that Iran retains the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons or restart its program post-US bombing raids raises an uncomfortable question: Should the US deploy military action again to finish the job and counter any future Iranian advancements with more strikes? This raises the specter of a multi-year quasi-war with Iran, a concept that doesn't sit well with Trump.
Trump and his cronies are generating an abundance of indignation and attacking the media for reporting an initial, "low confidence" assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency that US attacks on three of Iran's facilities failed to destroy the core components of its nuclear program and merely delayed it by months.
At a NATO summit, Trump went on a public relations offensive, painting the raid as "extraordinarily successful." He defended his assertions by saying, "No other military on Earth could have done it." Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth launched a theatrical outburst against media outlets like ours after they reported on the assessment. Hegseth accused such outlets of trying to "spin" news for political reasons at the expense of the troops' opinions.
The White House cited an assessment from Israel's military chief of staff that Iran's nuclear program experienced "extensive" damage and was set back several years. CIA Director John Ratcliffe claimed that the agency had evidence Iran's nuclear program had been "severely damaged." Nonetheless, these declarations don't completely support Trump's grandiose claims.
Trump's tactics are a repeat of his strategy in the 2020 election, where he manufactured his own narratives, disregarding evidence, to better serve his interests. If the world believes that Iran's nuclear program is destroyed and all contrary evidence is discredited, Trump will have a justification for inaction.
Trump's hasty victory laps pose problems
As we know, everything hidden is, by definition, mysterious. Thorough evaluations on the extent of the setbacks to Iran's nuclear program could take months. It is also impossible to know if the administration withholds sensitive information about the aftermath of the strikes due to operational considerations.
A more measured initial White House response to the raids might have avoided the current uproar. However, given that Trump announced while B-2 bombers were still aloft that the mission was a "total success," any counter-evidence could spell an embarrassing reversal for Trump, damaging his ego and credibility.
The overreactive response to questioning on whether Iran's nuclear program has truly been wiped out raises doubts about the administration's honesty. This deflection distracts from aspects of the mission that Trump can claim credit for—a flawless round-the-world bombing raid with zero United States casualties, effective pressure on Israel and Iran to cease hostilities, and his success in avoiding a drawn-out conflict.
Growing controversy over Iran's nuclear program also overshadows an undeniable achievement by Trump at the summit in the Netherlands, where member states made a commitment to spend 5% of their GDP on defense by 2035. Despite the difficulty in reaching this goal, no other president has managed to accomplish anything similar.
The White House only has itself to blame.
Misunderstandings about the administration's sudden belief that Iran was weeks away from building a nuclear weapon sowed suspicion about their motivations. The administration's lack of communication with some top Democrats regarding the B-2 bombing mission needlessly politicized an issue on which Trump could anticipate bipartisan support. The administration subsequently postponed Congressional briefings on the strikes until Thursday, leaving the viability of these sessions uncertain.
Trump's intelligence chiefs rushed to support his claims on Wednesday. Ratcliffe claimed that the CIA had obtained "credible evidence" that Iran's nuclear program had been "substantially damaged." However, Ratcliffe's comments fell short of Trump's assertions of obliteration. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced that "new intelligence" showed that Iran's nuclear facilities had been "destroyed."
Yet, none of the pushback provided evidence that would assist Americans in drawing informed conclusions. It did nothing to validate Trump's claims that Iran had not moved any enriched uranium before the raids or address the possibility of hidden facilities Iran could potentially use to race towards a bomb.
The administration seems to want to gloss over difficult questions
Contrary to what Hegseth claimed, it's not disloyal to report information verified by administration officials questioning the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear program. Nor is any criticism directed towards the pilots of the B-2 bombers, who carried out a dangerous multi-hour mission. The media's tone towards their efforts has generally been praiseful rather than critical.
Instead, the issue lies in evaluating whether the bunker-busting bombs truly penetrated the Fordow nuclear facility, buried deep underground, and destroyed centrifuges that spin uranium. Additionally, one must consider whether Trump is fulfilling his responsibilities as President if evidence suggests the objectives were not fully met.
The administration's extreme reaction to the preliminary, low-confidence Pentagon intelligence report creates a troubling possibility—that they may be pressuring the intelligence community to modify intelligence to suit their political interests. This harmful pattern has previously had devastating consequences for US national security. This behavior is a significant concern given a president with a history of trashing the US intelligence community and appointing officials with politicized views to lead it.
Future intelligence reports—which could take months to finalize—might conclude that Iran's nuclear program has been eliminated or significantly set back. If not, Trump faces a significant political and diplomatic challenge.
Now that the US has taken military action alongside Israel to attempt to annihilate Iran's nuclear program, Trump has established a benchmark for himself. If credible evidence emerges that Iran has salvaged aspects of its program, such as centrifuges or stocks of enriched uranium, Trump—or Israel—will face pressure to take new actions to halt it. The International Atomic Energy Agency has suggested that Iran might have relocated uranium, making it easier to transport, before the US and Israeli raids.
Future US actions against Iran could create the conditions for a prolonged war or deeper low-level conflict in the Middle East, a scenario that Trump has vowed to avoid and could potentially fracture his political base.
There is a precedent for such long-term and expensive engagements, such as the US-led coalition maintaining no-fly zones in Iraq for over a decade to protect the Kurdish minority in the north and Shiites in the south and to contain Saddam Hussein's military.
The diplomatic road ahead
Uncertainty about the fate of Iran's nuclear program could make it challenging to reach a diplomatic solution with Iran. Trump stated at the NATO summit on Wednesday that US and Iranian negotiators would meet next week. Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, informed CNBC on Wednesday that Trump is seeking a "comprehensive peace agreement" with Iran that goes beyond the nuclear issue. Such an outcome would mark a remarkably significant breakthrough after nearly half a century of conflict. If Trump could resolve the US's estrangement from the Islamic Republic—possibly by dismantling Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's power base—he could indeed claim a major legacy achievement.
However, hopes of a peaceful resolution rely heavily on developments within the Iranian political landscape, forces far beyond US control, and extremist factions, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, that stand to lose prestige and economic power if the regime changes or falls.
Some experts believe that Iran might respond to the US and Israeli assault by regarding it as more essential than ever to develop a nuclear bomb to safeguard the regime's existence. If Tehran rejects cooperation with the IAEA and its inspectors, it might evade external scrutiny.
Trump, however, played down expectations for a lasting agreement with Iran. "We may sign an agreement. I don't know. To me, I don't think it's that necessary. I mean, they had a war. They fought, and now they're going back to their world. I don't care if I have an agreement or not," the president said. He seemingly hinted that Iran's statement not to pursue nuclear weapons would undermine his claim of obliterating the program.
The complete truth may not be known for months. It would be a twisted irony if, 20 years after a war initiated by misleading intelligence about a weapons of mass destruction program that didn't exist, another White House manipulated intelligence to misrepresent a program in Iran that was actually active.
- The overreactive response from the administration to questions about the extent of damage to Iran's nuclear program raises concerns about politics influencing policy-and-legislation, as Trump's insistence on downplaying any evidence that contradicts his claim of obliterating the program could be seen as a strategic move to avoid further war-and-conflicts.
- The ongoing saga of Iran's nuclear program has highlighted the confused state of policy-and-legislation, with war-and-conflicts looming large over general-news discussions between the US and Iran, as politicians grapple with how to approach the issue without causing further destabilization in the Middle East.
