Disputed Damage: The Truth Behind U.S. Strikes on Iran's Nuclear Program

Intercepted communications from Iran suggest minimal damage from U.S. strikes on its nuclear program, contradicting U.S. claims of obliteration. The credibility of these intercepts is under question. While the White House dismisses the report, uncertainty remains about the true impact of the military action.

The Washington Post has reported intercepted Iranian communications that downplay the U.S. military strikes on Iran's nuclear program, sparking debate over the actual extent of the damage. These communications, deemed unreliable by some U.S. officials, suggest a narrative different from what has been officially declared.

Conflicting reports have emerged, with a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency assessment indicating that the strikes might only have delayed Iran's nuclear development by a few months. President Donald Trump's assertions of complete obliteration differ from this cautious evaluation, highlighting a gap in perceived effectiveness.

Despite the White House dismissing these Iranian accounts as absurd, uncertainty lingers over the actual state of Iran's nuclear capabilities. President Trump remains adamant about their destruction, asserting that the strikes ended Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, at least temporarily.

(With inputs from agencies.)