US Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Sites: Successful or Unsuccessful?

On Thursday, June 26, 2025, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took to the Pentagon briefing room to defend the recent U.S. military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, calling them a historic achievement. The strikes, which targeted key nuclear sites at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, have sparked intense debate over their effectiveness. While Hegseth and US President Donald Trump claim the attacks “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear ambitions, conflicting reports and unanswered questions about Iran’s uranium stockpile have muddied the waters.

Here Is What You Need To Know

Last Saturday, the U.S. launched “Operation Midnight Hammer,” a complex military operation involving seven B-2 stealth bombers and over 125 aircraft, including decoy flights. The mission dropped 75 precision-guided weapons, including 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs, on three of Iran’s key nuclear sites. The goal was to cripple Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by targeting enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow and a conversion facility in Isfahan, where uranium is processed into a form usable for weapons.

Hegseth praised the operation as a resounding success, emphasizing its strategic importance. “I hope, with all the ink spilled, all of your outlets find the time to properly recognize this historic change in continental security that other presidents tried to do, other presidents talked about,” he said. “President Trump accomplished it. It’s a huge deal.”

The defense secretary argued that the strikes, ordered by President Trump, “created the conditions to end the war, decimating – choose your word – obliterating, destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities.” He highlighted the operation’s precision and secrecy, noting that B-2 bombers flew from Missouri to Iran without detection, supported by fighter jets and a submarine launching Tomahawk missiles.

Conflicting Assessments Spark Controversy

Despite the Trump administration’s claims of victory, a leaked preliminary report from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has cast doubt on the strikes’ impact. The report, based on early battle damage assessments, suggested that the bombings caused only “limited” damage to key infrastructure, particularly at the deeply buried Fordow facility. It estimated that Iran’s nuclear program was set back by just a few months, with critical components like centrifuges potentially operational again soon.

Hegseth dismissed the DIA report as “preliminary” and unreliable, arguing it was “leaked because someone had an agenda to try to muddy the waters and make it look like this historic strike wasn’t successful.” He pointed out that the assessment, made just a day and a half after the strikes, admitted it needed weeks to gather complete data. Instead, Hegseth and General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, relied on AI modeling and test videos of the bunker buster bombs to support their claims of significant damage. They deferred detailed questions about the Fordow facility to the intelligence community.

Adding to the controversy, CIA Director John Ratcliffe issued a statement claiming “credible intelligence” showed that Iran’s nuclear program was “severely damaged” and would take years to rebuild. This contrasted with the DIA’s findings, highlighting uncertainty within the U.S. intelligence community.

The Missing Uranium Stockpile

A major point of uncertainty is the fate of Iran’s 400 kilograms (880 pounds) of 60% enriched uranium, enough to potentially produce nine nuclear bombs if further enriched to 90% purity. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that this stockpile, previously stored near Isfahan, could no longer be accounted for after the strikes. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi noted that Iranian officials had informed him the uranium was moved to avoid threats, but its current location remains unknown.

Hegseth downplayed concerns about the missing uranium, stating, “I’m not aware of any intelligence… that says things were not where they were supposed to be, moved or otherwise.”