Asger Risom
President Trump told Congress that Iran operated a nuclear weapons development program, contradicting U.S. intelligence assessments. The claim has reignited debate over the credibility of intelligence used to justify recent U.S. airstrikes.
In a letter dated June 23 and published by the White House, Trump informed House Speaker Mike Johnson that U.S. forces conducted precision strikes against three nuclear sites in Iran, which he alleged were used for weapons development.
This assertion challenges official U.S. intelligence findings, which have consistently stated that Iran shut down its weapons program in 2003.
This means that Trumps own intelligence, or perhaps lack thereof, is in direct contradiction with officially published U.S. intelligence findings dating back more than 20 years.
Trump rejects intelligence consensus
The most recent assessment, delivered in March by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, reaffirmed that Iran’s supreme leader had not ordered a restart of the nuclear weapons effort.
Gabbard stated Iran could technically build a weapon within weeks or months if it chose to, but had not yet made that decision.
Trump dismissed that view last week, saying, “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having one.”
His stance has drawn comparisons to the 2003 Iraq war, where claims about weapons of mass destruction later proved unfounded.
Strikes may yield limited impact
The U.S. airstrikes, launched on June 22, targeted three key facilities: Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. Fordow, a deeply buried site capable of housing advanced centrifuges, was hit with bunker-busting bombs.
Trump and top officials declared the sites destroyed.
However, early U.S. intelligence assessments suggest the strikes may have delayed Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months.
A U.S. official told Reuters the report included several caveats and that more detailed evaluations are forthcoming.
Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes.
The contrasting narratives from the White House and intelligence community now raise new concerns about the factual basis for U.S. military action.
