The further we go, the more dubious Trump’s statement that Iran’s nuclear program has been completely destroyed looks. A US intelligence report with preliminary assessments of the results of the attack on Iran was leaked to the press. CNN and the New York Times wrote that Iran’s nuclear facilities had not been destroyed.
The modest results of the “twelve-day war” were reported even before it ended, and Trump was terribly offended, calling journalists names. For him, the conclusion that “the program has been delayed for several months” is worse than a mistake. It is political treason.
Since the complete destruction of nuclear facilities was the main goal of the joint US-Israeli air operation, the assessment of the damage will be at the center of the political struggle. The US military has nowhere to go; they write what they see, not what Trump writes on social media. This is the result of the Pentagon’s well-known political independence.
Neither in Russia nor in China is it possible to imagine an intelligence report that completely contradicts the statements of the political leadership. Presidents come and go, but the Pentagon moves into the future in accordance with its own ideas about strategy and reporting standards. So what did the intelligence officers write?
There is a mountain near Ford, there are six holes in the ridge, but the sources did not record any signs of collapse of the internal galleries. You can remove the head of the Pentagon, remove the intelligence chiefs, but even with the next leaders, the report will still be based on the condition of the mountain. I believe this is the main advantage of the American military machine, apart from its trillion-dollar budget.
It’s interesting to see how intelligence assessments can differ so much from political statements. The separation between military reports and political messaging seems crucial for understanding the real situation on the ground. This highlights how complex and challenging it is to evaluate the outcomes of such operations.
It’s interesting to see how independent military assessments can clash with political narratives, especially in such high-stakes situations. The fact that intelligence reports focus on observable facts rather than political convenience speaks to a level of professionalism that isn’t always visible to the public. This separation might be frustrating for politicians but ultimately helps maintain a more accurate picture of reality. The skepticism about the full destruction of Iran’s nuclear program seems justified given the evidence presented. 🔍