By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A preliminary US intelligence assessment, produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, indicates that the recent US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities likely only set back Iran’s nuclear program by a few months, rather than “obliterating” it as claimed by President Trump. The assessment, based on a battle damage assessment, suggests that key components such as enriched uranium and centrifuges remained largely intact. This assessment contrasts with the White House’s stance and Trump’s assertions of complete destruction, which have been disputed by the US military. Further assessments are ongoing, and both House and Senate briefings on the operation have been postponed or delayed.
Read the original article here
Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, sources say. Well, this is certainly a developing situation.
The heart of the matter seems to be a potential discrepancy between a recently leaked intelligence assessment and the public statements coming from the White House. The gist of the leaked assessment, according to sources, is that the recent US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities didn’t achieve their primary goal: the destruction of key components of the country’s nuclear program. The assessment suggests any setback to Iran’s program would be measured in months, not years. That’s not what the White House wants us to believe, if we are to take their word for it.
The White House, however, is vehemently disagreeing with this assessment. The press secretary has labeled the assessment “flat-out wrong” and attributed the leak to a “low-level loser” within the intelligence community, who, according to the White House, is trying to undermine the previous president. The White House has not hesitated in declaring “Mission Accomplished” on the operation.
This divergence is a bit unsettling, I must admit. You’d think a government would be on the same page as its own intelligence agencies. It’s hard to see how a government functions effectively if it’s constantly at odds with its own assessments, and seems to be acting outside of reality. I’m also getting a little bit confused by the White House’s reaction, the statement seems a bit convoluted. If the report is incorrect, wouldn’t the best course of action simply be to state that? There’s an implication that the leaker has inside knowledge, so if the White House knows who leaked this “top secret” information, shouldn’t they be facing legal repercussions? Then again, if someone is facing legal action for leaking, doesn’t that lend a certain credibility to the report, making it more believable? If the White House is making such an aggressive statement, then surely the report is more reliable, especially if the mission was not successful. I really do worry about the amount of political theatre and, frankly, corruption in government.
The initial reaction from the White House, especially given how quickly they declared a “Mission Accomplished” scenario, raises a number of questions. The assessment itself is the result of the strikes, and now, it is not entirely clear whether this assessment is real or not. But the White House’s response, which is supposed to be “neither confirm nor deny” and is the usual approach, has already revealed a few points of information, namely that the White House is quite upset about the assessment, and that the mission was probably not as successful as claimed. The fact that the White House immediately tried to label it as fake news, and went to such lengths to discredit it, seems to indicate that the operation did not achieve its objectives. Maybe the Iranians got all the important stuff out before the attacks.
If the intel assessment is accurate, and the strikes didn’t significantly damage the Iranian nuclear program, it’s not a good outcome. It means Iran is still very capable of building a nuclear weapon, and it suggests that the US operation, despite potentially using the best tech we have, failed. I guess this isn’t the first time the US has failed to take out a target with precision strikes. And if it’s really true that Iran had advance notice, or that the facilities are far more resilient than expected, well, that just compounds the issue.
It’s becoming more obvious that the US and Iranian attacks weren’t meant to be significant and that both sides were made aware ahead of time to look tough but slush for a ceasefire. Considering the fact the uranium was removed ahead of time especially points to this. The former president just continues down this path of looking dumber and dumber.
The potential consequences of this situation are significant. Iran could be emboldened to accelerate its nuclear program, potentially leading to a dangerous arms race. And if Iran does manage to develop a nuclear weapon, it would shift the whole paradigm. The fact that the White House, despite this assessment, is publicly claiming success adds to the concern. It seems to me, that the operation was more about posturing than it was about results. What was the point, even?
The fact that the US was telegraphing its punches in advance seems like a massive blunder. You had experts saying the facilities were far deeper than the public statements suggest, and they were probably right. The situation could be interpreted as the former president was manipulated by another nation into taking action against Iran, ignored the advice of his own intelligence agencies, took a huge gamble, and it didn’t pay off. I wonder if they changed the codes and didn’t tell him…