...
By Gabe Whisnant and Sonam Sheth
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Republican Representative Michael McCaul of Texas told CNN on Friday that "most" of Iran's enriched uranium is intact after U.S. airstrikes hit the Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites.
Why It Matters
McCaul's comments came after lawmakers were given classified briefings on the strikes, which were carried out last weekend and which President Donald Trump said "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear facilities.
Read More on Politics
The full extent of the damage remains unknown and CNN, The New York Times and other media outlets reported that a preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency said the strikes did not destroy the key components of Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
The White House has publicly confirmed the existence of the assessment, though it disputes media reports about the early intelligence findings and is working on finding the source of the media leak. Israeli intelligence reports have also contradicted the initial U.S. assessment, estimating that more "significant" damage was done by the bombing.
...
What To Know
"There is enriched uranium in [Iran's] facilities that moves around, but that was not the intent or the mission," McCaul told CNN, referring to the U.S. strikes. "My understanding is most of it's still there."
"So, we need a full accounting. That's why Iran has to come to the table directly with us, so the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there. I don't think it's going out of the country. I think it's at the facilities."
The U.S. dropped more than a dozen 30,000 Massive Ordinance Penetrator munitions, known as bunker-buster bombs, on the Fordow and Natanz sites and launched Tomahawk cruise missiles at Isfahan.
Nuclear experts believe that Iran relocated more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium—enough for 10 nuclear weapons—to a secret location, a move that has left U.S. and international inspectors unable to verify the material's whereabouts.
In a Pentagon briefing on Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine defended the strike operation and attempted to shift focus away from whether Iran's uranium had been moved.
Hegseth labeled the strikes "an historically successful attack" and challenged critics for "breathlessly" focusing on early intelligence assessments suggesting only partial destruction.
"You want to call it destroyed, you want to call it defeated, you want to call it obliterated—choose your word," Hegseth told reporters. "This was an historically successful attack."
What People Are Saying
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt scorched CNN's reporting on the DIA assessment, telling the outlet in a statement: "This alleged assessment is flat-out wrong and was classified as 'top secret' but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community. The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump, and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program. Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration."
What Happens Next
Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire on Monday but then accused each other of violating the agreement and launched missile strikes at one another, infuriating Trump, who told reporters Iran and Israel "don't know what the f*** they're doing."
Trump also told reporters at a press conference on Friday that he expects Iran to work with international inspectors to verify that it doesn't restart its nuclear program, warning in a separate response that if Iran can still enrich weapons-grade material, he would "without question" bomb the country again.
Update 6/27/25, 5:48 p.m. ET: This story has been updated with additional information and context.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines