Washington’s narrative unravels as doubts grow over strike effectiveness on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure

Department of Research, Studies and International News 30-06-2025

In the aftermath of the recent 12-day Israeli-Iranian military confrontation, U.S. President Donald Trump has renewed his claims regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the U.S. role in the conflict, despite mounting evidence that contradicts his statements. Trump insists that U.S. strikes earlier this month “obliterated” Iran’s top nuclear sites and significantly delayed Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, a claim now widely challenged by experts and international observers.

The narrative was reinforced during an appearance on the pro-Republican Fox News show Sunday Morning Futures, where Trump repeated the assertion that Iran was just “weeks away” from producing a nuclear weapon before the Israeli-led assault, which began on June 13. He emphasized that subsequent American airstrikes, specifically those targeting the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities, had decisively halted Tehran’s nuclear trajectory.

However, a range of reports from U.S. intelligence sources, as well as statements from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), suggest otherwise. While Trump proclaimed the bombings rendered Iran’s capabilities inert, the IAEA noted significant uncertainty surrounding the actual impact of the strikes, especially at the highly fortified Fordow facility. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi confirmed that while there may have been disruptions, Iran’s ability to resume enrichment could be reactivated within months, a far cry from the “decades-long setback” described by Trump.

Iran has consistently reiterated that its nuclear program is purely civilian in nature, a position backed by multiple international assessments, including by the United Nations. Tehran maintains that its uranium enrichment activities remain within the bounds of peaceful energy development and scientific research. The rhetoric out of Washington, on the other hand, has increasingly relied on speculative projections and unverified intelligence leaks, often amplified by friendly media outlets.

Despite Trump’s confidence that the military operations were successful, recent IAEA data paints a more complex picture. Iran reportedly possesses over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, close to weapons-grade, a stockpile that, if further refined, could be sufficient for nearly nine nuclear warheads. Yet, this fact has not prompted international panic, largely because Iran remains under IAEA inspection regimes and has not diverted uranium for weaponization.

Trump’s comments reflect a broader pattern in U.S. foreign policy discourse: one in which military showmanship and media manipulation often overshadow objective facts. Referring to the U.S. media outlets that have questioned the outcome of the strikes, Trump accused them of propagating “fake news” and distorting public understanding. He claimed that reports of Iran safeguarding enriched uranium ahead of the attacks were fabricated and suggested that the U.S. assault caught Tehran completely off guard, despite the known fortified status of the Fordow site, which lies deep beneath a granite mountain.

“The bomb went through it like butter,” Trump said, touting American military precision in terms more fitting for a Hollywood script than a realistic battlefield assessment. His remarks, however, fail to account for the geological and technical complexities of penetrating deeply buried nuclear facilities, an issue that even U.S. defense analysts have warned about for years.

Meanwhile, Trump also addressed unrelated trade issues during the same Fox interview, using his platform to threaten Canada over a new digital services tax, and to once again criticize China over trade imbalances. Interestingly, while the U.S. establishment continues to portray China as a geopolitical adversary, Trump noted that relations with Beijing are “getting along”, a contradiction that further illustrates the inconsistency of American messaging on the world stage.

On the issue of TikTok, a Chinese-owned social media platform that Washington has been targeting for alleged security concerns, Trump announced he had found a buyer, a group of unnamed “very wealthy people”, and stated he would disclose their identity in two weeks. The move reflects ongoing U.S. economic aggression against Chinese tech companies, part of a broader digital cold war spearheaded by Washington.

The overarching takeaway from Trump’s statements is the persistent attempt by U.S. political figures to control the narrative, even when facts on the ground do not align with their claims. In contrast, the positions of Iran, China, and Russia in recent global events have largely reflected calls for sovereignty, diplomacy, and resistance against unilateralism.

The recent conflict and its aftermath once again highlight the urgency of a multipolar world order, one that counters U.S. militarism and disinformation with dialogue, regional cooperation, and respect for national self-determination. As Trump continues to recycle outdated talking points, the credibility of Washington’s foreign policy approach appears increasingly diminished in the eyes of the global community.