On Wednesday, CIA Director John Ratcliffe made a rare public statement defending President Donald Trump, asserting that the recent U.S. bombing campaign against Iran significantly damaged the country’s nuclear enrichment capabilities. Ratcliffe, previously a Republican congressman appointed by Trump, has generally avoided public commentary on the administration’s military actions, but he broke that pattern by stating that “credible intelligence” supports Trump’s claim that Iran’s nuclear program was “totally obliterated.”
According to Ratcliffe, new intelligence—including from a historically reliable source—confirms that multiple key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed in the strikes and would require years to rebuild. He added that the CIA is working closely with Israeli intelligence and confidential sources to further assess the long-term impact of the operation.
Ratcliffe’s statement aligns with separate findings from Israeli intelligence, which concluded Iran’s nuclear program has been delayed by at least two years. Trump has pointed to this analysis to counter media reports from CNN and The New York Times, which questioned the strikes’ effectiveness.
The CIA’s assessment bolsters Trump’s narrative at a time when opinions within his support base are divided between interventionist and isolationist views. It also highlights the administration’s pushback against reporting that suggests the bombing fell short of its goals.
Additionally, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard echoed the CIA’s conclusions. On social media, Gabbard wrote that intelligence under her authority confirms that Iran’s key nuclear facilities—Natanz, Fordow, and Esfahan—have been destroyed and would take years to rebuild.
She criticized the media for allegedly misrepresenting intelligence assessments and for attempting to discredit what she described as a “historic mission.” Gabbard accused the press of selectively leaking portions of classified information while ignoring key qualifiers, such as the confidence level of the assessments.
Both intelligence leaders emphasized their agencies’ commitment to transparency while continuing to monitor and analyze developments. Their remarks signal a unified front from the intelligence community in supporting the administration’s portrayal of the strikes as a major strategic success.
