Fact Check: Trump's Claims of 'Total Obliteration' of Iran's Nuclear Facilities Are Misleading
What We Know
Following a series of U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites on June 21, 2025, President Donald Trump asserted that these facilities were "completely and totally obliterated" (source). However, preliminary assessments from U.S. intelligence agencies indicate that the strikes only sealed off entrances to two facilities and did not collapse their underground structures. The Defense Intelligence Agency's initial report suggested that the strikes set back Iran's nuclear program by only a few months, contrary to Trump's claims of total destruction (source).
Moreover, it was reported that much of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile had been moved prior to the strikes, meaning that the actual damage to nuclear material was minimal (source). Experts have noted that the facilities, particularly the heavily fortified site at Fordo, sustained severe damage but were not "obliterated" as claimed by Trump (source).
Analysis
The claim that Iran's nuclear facilities were "obliterated" is misleading based on the evidence available. While Trump and some military officials initially described the strikes as a significant success, subsequent assessments have been more cautious. General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that "initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," but he did not confirm total obliteration (source).
Experts in military strategy and intelligence have pointed out that definitive assessments of damage to underground facilities like Fordo can take time and are often complicated by the depth and construction of such sites (source). The consensus among military analysts is that Trump's characterization was premature, as it is difficult to ascertain the full extent of damage immediately after an attack (source).
Additionally, the reliability of the sources reporting on the damage assessment varies. While the Defense Intelligence Agency's report is credible, the White House's pushback against these findings raises questions about potential bias in the administration's narrative (source).
Conclusion
The verdict on Trump's claim that Iran's nuclear facilities were "obliterated" is True in the sense that the assertion is misleading. The evidence indicates that while the strikes caused significant damage, they did not achieve total destruction of the facilities. The initial assessments suggest that Iran's nuclear program was set back only by a few months, and much of its enriched uranium remained intact and potentially relocated to other sites. Therefore, Trump's claims are overstated and not supported by the available intelligence assessments.
