Trump chose not to destroy Iran's nuclear program: New details revealed

A recent U.S. assessment reveals that American airstrikes last month targeting three of Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities achieved uneven success, with only one site significantly damaged while the other two may resume operations within months, according to five current and former U.S. officials familiar with the findings. The assessment, part of an ongoing effort to evaluate the impact of the strikes, has prompted discussions in Washington and Jerusalem about the potential need for additional military action if Iran moves to rebuild its nuclear capabilities, as reported by NBC.

The strikes, conducted on June 22, targeted enrichment facilities at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, with the Fordo site suffering the most extensive damage. U.S. officials estimate that the attack on Fordo, a critical component of Iran’s nuclear program, set back enrichment capabilities there by up to two years. However, the facilities at Natanz and Isfahan sustained less severe damage, potentially allowing Iran to resume nuclear enrichment within months if it chooses to do so, the officials said. The findings were recently briefed to U.S. lawmakers, Defense Department officials, and allied nations, four of the sources confirmed.

NBC adds new details that emerged about a more ambitious military plan rejected by President Donald Trump. U.S. Central Command had proposed a weeks-long campaign targeting six Iranian sites, including three additional facilities, to decisively cripple Iran’s nuclear program, according to a current U.S. official and two former officials. The plan, developed under Army Gen. Erik Kurilla, would have involved repeated strikes on nuclear sites, air defenses, and ballistic missile capabilities, potentially causing significant Iranian casualties. U.S. planners anticipated retaliatory attacks on American positions in Iraq and Syria, escalating the conflict.

Trump, briefed on the “all-in” plan, rejected it, citing his reluctance to entangle the United States in a protracted conflict abroad and concerns about high casualties on both sides, two of the sources said. “We were willing to go all the way in our options, but the president did not want to,” one source familiar with the plan told The Washington Post. Instead, Trump authorized a single-night operation, dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” targeting the three enrichment sites.

In a speech following the strikes, Trump described the operation as a “spectacular military success,” claiming that “Iran’s key enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly echoed this sentiment, stating, “As the President has said and experts have verified, Operation Midnight Hammer totally obliterated Iran’s nuclear capabilities. America and the world are safer, thanks to his decisive action.” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell similarly asserted that the strikes left Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan “destroyed, in the dirt, and will take years to recover.”

However, the U.S. assessment paints a more nuanced picture. While the Fordo facility, built deep within a mountain, was heavily damaged by 30,000-pound GBU-57 “bunker buster” bombs—used in combat for the first time—the strikes on Natanz and Isfahan were less effective. U.S. officials knew before the operation that Iran had constructed tunnels at Natanz and Isfahan too deep for even the GBU-57 to penetrate. At Isfahan, the United States relied on Tomahawk missiles to hit surface targets, while GBU-57s were used at Natanz, according to three sources.

Satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies illustrates the damage. Images of Fordo taken on June 20 and June 22 show significant destruction, while imagery of Isfahan from June 16 and June 22 reveals less extensive damage. At Natanz, Israeli airstrikes earlier in the year had already destroyed multiple buildings, but U.S. strikes in June targeted remaining infrastructure, with limited success against deeply buried facilities, per NBC.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe, in a closed-door briefing to lawmakers in late June, described Iran’s nuclear program as “severely damaged,” claiming that the metal conversion facility at Natanz, essential for enrichment, would take “years to rebuild,” according to an administration official. Ratcliffe also said that much of Iran’s enriched uranium at Isfahan and Fordo was buried under rubble, making it difficult for Iran to access, though a senior Israeli official noted that some highly enriched uranium at Isfahan remains intact but likely unreachable. Israel, which believes Iran’s nuclear program has been set back by up to two years, has vowed to strike again if Iran attempts to recover the material.

The strikes have shifted the strategic landscape. Iran’s air defenses, severely degraded by the operation, leave the country vulnerable to future attacks, a White House official said. “It was made clear that Iran no longer has any more [air defenses], so the idea that they can easily rebuild anything is ludicrous,” the official told The Post. This vulnerability, combined with the threat of further U.S. or Israeli strikes, is seen by some administration officials and Republican advocates as a deterrent against Iran reviving its nuclear program.

Still, the possibility of renewed conflict looms. U.S. and Israeli officials are discussing whether additional strikes on Natanz and Isfahan may be necessary if Iran refuses to negotiate a new nuclear deal or shows signs of rebuilding, two sources said. Trump, asked last month if he would consider bombing Iran again, responded, “Sure. Without question. Absolutely.”

The strikes follow years of tension over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In 2018, during his first term, Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which had limited Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. After the withdrawal, Iran accelerated its uranium enrichment, amassing enough fissile material for approximately nine to 10 nuclear bombs before the June strikes, according to U.S. and U.N. estimates. Iran has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons, a stance reiterated by its foreign minister in an interview with The Post the day before the U.S. operation.

As intelligence gathering continues, U.S. assessments of the strikes’ impact may evolve. Two officials noted that recent findings suggest more damage than initially reported, but the current assessment indicates that Iran’s nuclear program, while weakened, is not entirely eliminated. The Trump administration’s next steps, whether renewed diplomacy or further military action, will likely depend on Iran’s response and the intelligence that emerges in the coming months.