Tehran's nuclear ambitions just dodged a knockout punch, or so a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report wants you to believe. Despite U.S. precision strikes on Iran's top three nuclear sites, authorized by President Donald Trump, the DIA claimed only moderate damage was inflicted. This narrative, peddled to CNN and the New York Times, reeks of Iranian deception, and former intelligence officers aren't buying it, as the Washington Free Beacon reports.
Trump greenlit strikes targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, but a DIA assessment suggested the attacks merely set Tehran’s program back by months. The report, labeled "low-confidence" by the U.S. intelligence community, relied heavily on satellite imagery and intercepted Iranian communications. Axios revealed Israeli intercepts indicating Iranian military officials fed false reports to their political leaders, downplaying the true extent of the destruction.
Three former U.S. intelligence operatives, alongside a current official, exposed the DIA's reliance on deceptive Iranian chatter. "You can wipe your ass with it," one former officer quipped about the report’s credibility. Clearly, Tehran’s propaganda machine is working overtime, and the DIA fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
The DIA report’s findings, particularly about the Fordow facility -- a bunker buried under 300 feet of concrete -- drew sharp criticism. "You’re not going to see a huge hole down to Hell," a former intelligence officer scoffed, dismissing the report’s shallow analysis. The idea that precision strikes left such a fortified site barely scratched defies logic and insults our military’s capability.
Michael Pregent, a former U.S. Central Command intelligence officer, called the DIA’s work "messaging by Tehran." He accused the agency of repackaging National Security Agency signals intelligence as gospel, despite knowing it was Iranian spin. This isn’t intelligence; it’s a script straight from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ playbook.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) painted a starkly different picture, confirming "enormous damage" to Iran’s nuclear program. Centrifuges, critical to uranium enrichment, were "completely destroyed," according to a U.S. official familiar with the assessment. So why is the DIA peddling a watered-down version of reality?
CIA Director John Ratcliffe dropped a bombshell, stating a reliable source confirmed key Iranian nuclear facilities were obliterated. Rebuilding, he said, would take years, not months. This directly undercuts the DIA’s flimsy claim of minimal impact and exposes its report as a bureaucratic embarrassment.
A former intelligence officer didn’t mince words: "It’s clear that those people had no idea what they were talking about." Iranian officials, fully aware that their phones were monitored, fed disinformation to mislead U.S. analysts. The DIA’s failure to see through this ruse raises serious questions about its competence.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) slammed the DIA report as "preliminary" and riddled with "numerous intelligence gaps" after a Trump administration briefing. He’s right -- relying on Tehran’s lies instead of hard evidence is a rookie mistake. The American people deserve better from our intelligence agencies.
A senior DIA official admitted the assessment wasn’t meant for public eyes and announced an FBI-led investigation into the leak. The agency’s inability to physically inspect the targeted sites further undermines its claims. Without boots on the ground, the DIA is grasping at straws, and it shows.
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser, warned that DIA analysts often get too cozy with their targets’ narratives. "Too much Iran leads to becoming analytically -- if not morally -- unhinged," he said. This isn’t just a one-off; it’s a systemic flaw in how the DIA processes intelligence.
Simone Ledeen, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, called for a complete overhaul of the analytic corps. She blamed "indoctrinated" analysts from elite schools for bungling the assessment. Her point hits hard: ideological bias has no place in national security.
A current U.S. official praised the strikes, saying, "The military operation carried out by the United States was a huge success." Our troops executed Trump’s mission with precision, yet the DIA’s report downplays their triumph. This isn’t just sloppy; it’s a disservice to our brave servicemen and women.
The DIA’s "low-confidence" label should’ve been a red flag, not a headline. "Nothing that they said should have been used as any sort of gospel," a former officer stressed. Tehran’s propaganda doesn’t get a free pass just because it’s intercepted by a satellite.
The leaked report’s fallout exposes a deeper rot in our intelligence community. When analysts prioritize narrative over truth, America’s security suffers. It’s time to clean house, trust our military’s proven results, and stop letting Iran’s lies dictate the story.
