Senate Republicans are pushing back against a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report that claimed President Donald Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear sites did not fully destroy the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. The report, which describes a ‘low confidence’ assessment, has been met with strong resistance from GOP lawmakers, who argue that the damage to Iran’s nuclear capabilities was ‘devastating.’
Sen. Kevin Cramer, a Republican from North Dakota, has been vocal in his defense of the strike, calling the report’s findings ‘bogus’ and questioning the DIA’s judgment. ‘First of all, one of the things I’d consider is the DIA said that Ukraine would be wiped out in three days,’ Cramer told Fox News Digital. ‘And second, whatever the damage to Fordow is, the damage to the [nuclear] capabilities of Iran are devastating.’ Cramer emphasized that the effects of the bombing, which was carried out by several B-2 bombers equipped with bunker-busting bombs, could not be ‘overstated.’
In addition to Cramer, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi, has also dismissed the DIA’s assessment, citing the Israeli ambassador’s testimony that Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been ‘destroyed for years.’ Wicker’s remarks came after Republicans met with Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter, reinforcing the administration’s claim that the mission was ‘accomplished.’
The DIA’s findings are part of a broader debate over U.S. military actions in the Middle East and the extent of their impact. While the agency’s assessment has not been confirmed, many lawmakers and officials from both Israel and Iran have expressed that the strikes have significantly damaged the Islamic Republic’s nuclear infrastructure. The situation remains fluid as senators await a detailed briefing from Trump officials on Thursday to assess the true extent of the damage.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., has also expressed confidence in the president’s assessment, stating that there is ‘no inconsistency’ between the president’s claims and the evidence he has reviewed. Nevertheless, Rounds cautioned that without more concrete information, the true impact of the strikes remains unclear. ‘I don’t think you ever take anything off the table for the president,’ Rounds said, ‘but there might be other ways of handling it as well, because we’ve really opened that place up now.’
As the debate continues, the issue of whether additional strikes or alternative strategies are necessary remains a key consideration for policymakers. The outcome of this deliberation could have significant implications for U.S. foreign policy and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.