Iran's weaponization program was set back years, not months. The DIA report is limited in scope and admits it is "low confidence." ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Wednesday, June 25, 2025

Iran's weaponization program was set back years, not months. The DIA report is limited in scope and admits it is "low confidence."

The Washington Post (and others) report:

An initial U.S. intelligence report assesses that airstrikes ordered by President Donald Trump against Iran’s nuclear facilities set Tehran’s program back by months but did not eliminate it, contradicting claims by Trump and his top aides about the mission’s success, according to three people familiar with the report.

The classified report by the Defense Intelligence Agency is based on the Pentagon’s early bomb damage assessment of the strikes on nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan using earth-penetrating munitions carried by B-2 bombers and submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles.

It assesses that the strikes did not destroy the core components of Iran’s nuclear program and probably set it back by several months, not years, one of the people said.

Michelle Goldberg, in a New York Times opinion piece titled "Mission Not Accomplished," is almost gleeful:

Indeed, it now may be more likely, not less, that Iran will become a nuclear power.

On Tuesday, The Times, The Washington Post and CNN all reported on a preliminary classified report from the Defense Intelligence Agency, which found that America’s bombing campaign set back Iran’s nuclear program by months, not years. It’s early, but Iran appears to have removed much of its highly enriched uranium before the American attack, possibly to secret facilities. The sites that were hit apparently didn’t sustain as much damage as people in the administration had hoped, with many centrifuges remaining intact.

So what's going on?

First of all, notice that the DIA report is only talking about US airstrikes on enrichment facilities, not the larger war. It doesn't mention Israel's many strikes on weaponization facilities, and without weaponization, Iran cannot build a bomb. Weaponization involves complex processes like uranium metallurgy, high-explosive triggers, and warhead miniaturization, requiring specialized facilities and expertise. Israel’s strikes on these components, including the assassination of key scientists, have crippled Iran’s ability to turn its enriched uranium into a deliverable weapon, even if some uranium remains.

Secondly, while the WaPo says this, other media don't mention that the DIA report is preliminary and was issued with "low confidence" as to its conclusions.

In other words, this report was leaked for political purposes to make Trump and Israel look bad. It does not reflect reality. Even the DIA wouldn't rely on it as being accurate.

The real experts on nuclear weaponization all agree: Israel and the US set back Iran's program by years.

The Institute for the Study of War summarized the situation:

The Institute for Science and International Security assessed that US and Israeli strikes on Iran have “effectively destroyed” Iran’s enrichment program.[16] The Institute said it will take a “long time” for Iran to restore its enrichment capabilities to pre-strike levels. This assessment is based on the destruction Iran suffered at Natanz nuclear facility, Fordow nuclear facility, Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center and the elimination of many nuclear scientists.[17] The six entry point craters for the US bunker-buster bombs at Fordow were above two weak points, and the bombs would have detonated within the facility.[18] The Institute for Science and International Security assesses that the bomb blast would have been channeled by the centrifuge cascade hall’s side walls, which would have destroyed all of the installed centrifuges there.[19] International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) battle damage assessments indicate that Israeli strikes also likely damaged or destroyed several thousand centrifuges at Natanz.[20] Israel and the United States conducted airstrikes targeting the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant above ground and Fuel Enrichment Plant underground at Natanz, respectively.[21] The IAEA added that it was possible that uranium isotopes may have been dispersed within the facility (though not outside), which would make it difficult to access.[22] This means it may be some time before even the Iranians can determine the true extent of the damage.

The Institute for Science and International Security stated that Iran still retains stockpiles of 3 to 5 percent, 20 percent, and 60 percent enriched uranium, however.[23] Weapons-grade uranium (WGU) is uranium enriched up to 90 percent. The destruction of so many centrifuges will make enriching from 60 percent to 90 percent much slower. A US weapons expert stated that US and Israeli strikes have also made it significantly more difficult and time-consuming for Iran to turn WGU into a usable nuclear weapon.[24] He said the strikes have “significantly” increased the time required for Iran to “even build a non-missile deliverable weapon,“ such as a nuclear bomb. There are significant challenges associated with miniaturizing a nuclear weapon to install it on a ballistic missile warhead.

The Free Beacon adds:

"I think the Iranian nuclear program has been set back significantly, significantly," International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general Rafael Grossi said in a Fox News interview. He noted that "it is clear that there is one Iran—before June 13, nuclear Iran—and one now," describing the difference as "night and day."

The idea that Goldberg floats that this war will make Iran more likely to hurtle towards a weaponization program ignores the clear evidence that it already was. The idea that the US and Israel shouldn't attack an active nuclear weapons program because it would make Iran mad, or make it more likely to try to hide its efforts, is laughably divorced from reality - this is what Iran has been doing for several years.

In short, the DIA report is all but useless, and the entire reason it was leaked was political, not to add any facts to the conversation. Anyone citing a report that itself says it is "low confidence" as fact is not interested in the truth.