By John Q. Hosedrinker 
While the Trump administration touted the U.S. airstrikes on Iran as a major blow to its nuclear program, new intelligence suggests the impact was far less significant. Operation Midnight Hammer, involving B-2 bombers and “bunker buster” bombs, targeted Iranian facilities in an effort to halt nuclear weapons development. However, according to sources briefed on the operation, the strikes likely only delayed Iran’s progress by a matter of months, with key components like enriched uranium stockpiles and centrifuges largely intact. The White House has disputed this assessment, calling the report inaccurate and criticizing the anonymous sources.
Read the original article here
White House reactions after an Intel assessment finds that the U.S. strikes did not destroy Iranian nuclear sites have been, to put it mildly, a bit of a spectacle. The core of the issue lies in a leaked intelligence assessment that contradicts the initial narrative of complete success. According to this assessment, the U.S. strikes, while likely causing some damage, failed to cripple Iran’s nuclear program. The enriched uranium stockpile remained largely intact, and the centrifuges, the workhorses of nuclear enrichment, were still operational, setting back the program “maybe a few months, tops,” according to one source.
The White House’s response, delivered through Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, was swift and direct, effectively dismissing the assessment as “flat-out wrong.” However, the way this denial was delivered is where the real story lies. Instead of presenting counter-evidence or a reasoned argument, the White House chose to attack the source of the leak. The alleged leaker, in Leavitt’s words, was an “anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community.” This choice of words is significant. It’s not just a denial; it’s a personal attack intended to discredit the information by discrediting the person who shared it. It’s a classic move: shoot the messenger.
This strategy raises several immediate questions. Firstly, if the leaker is truly “low-level,” how did they even gain access to such sensitive information in the first place? If someone is truly “low-level”, how would they even be in a position to know what the intel assessment entails? Moreover, the very act of labeling someone anonymous and yet simultaneously describing their position in the intelligence community seems contradictory. The intelligence community, by its nature, works in secrecy. If the White House knew the leaker’s level and described them as a “low-level loser”, it is a serious breach. If they didn’t know the leaker’s identity, how could they make this judgment call?
Secondly, why resort to personal insults if the administration firmly believes the assessment is inaccurate? A confident denial would focus on the factual errors within the assessment, providing alternative data and analysis to support their position. By resorting to name-calling, the White House inadvertently highlights the weakness of their own argument and invites suspicion. The fact that the White House acknowledged the existence of the assessment yet strongly disagreed with it doesn’t make the situation better, but it raises flags.
The White House’s reaction suggests a desperate attempt to control the narrative and deflect from potential political embarrassment. It also points to a lack of respect for the intelligence community, which often provides vital information that is used by those in the White House. This reaction does show that the administration appears more concerned with maintaining a carefully constructed image of success than with an honest assessment of the situation.
The reaction can be interpreted as a demonstration of the administration’s preference for controlling the information that is sent out to the public, and a complete lack of concern for anything else. This is a dangerous game to play, especially when national security and global stability are at stake. If the White House is perceived as constantly spinning the truth, it erodes trust in the government.
The very fact that this information leaked, and the administration is dealing with the leak, means that the information contained in the report is factual. If they did not believe this to be the case, they would have no need to attack the messenger. This approach could have far-reaching consequences, from diplomatic relations to military strategy. The U.S. has many relationships around the globe, and any information that the government chooses to release must be done with careful consideration.
The whole situation has a distinctly immature air about it. The administration’s response feels less like a measured, fact-based defense of a position and more like a petulant reaction. It shows a profound lack of leadership, as well as a lack of respect for the public, the intelligence community, and the complex issues at hand. By constantly relying on insult, the White House is shooting itself in the foot.