On Propaganda and Childish Politics

As James Joyner notes, the leaked DIA preliminary assessment suggests that the bombing of three sites in Iran has only set back Iran’s nuclear potential by mere months.

Nonetheless, while the White House Press Secretary seems to confirm that the report exists, even as she calls it “flat-out wrong” and calls the leaker a “loser.”

Now, I am pretty sure that Ms. Leavitt is no defense expert, and so in a contest between her assessment and that of the DIA, I am going to lend more credence to the views of the DIA. Not to mention that pretty much any expert on this subject has warned about this being the likely outcome. Sure, maybe all the experts are wrong, and, yes, physical inspection of the sites is required for a definitive conclusion. I would hasten to add, however, that even significant damage to the sites doesn’t mean that nuclear material and vital equipment weren’t moved.

Of course, we have here the bottom line of how Trump and his team operate: they look at the world like children whose understanding of global politics has been formed, at best, by TV and movies.

You see, she knows the DIA doesn’t know what they are talking about, because if you drop 14 like, really big bombs, on something you get “total obliteration”! Like, duh!

Of course, a major part of the propagandistic tell here is that she is directly echoing Trump’s own simplistic language with the whole “total obliteration” bit (with bonus points for calling the leaker a “loser”).

Meanwhile, the President of the United States is handling the preliminary assessment with maturity and aplomb.

Do note, if you can look past the distracting shouty-caps, that he wants to misdirect the question of mission success with somehow demeaning the military, which is just an attempt to paper over legitimate questions with cheap flag-waving.

Between that post above and my writing at roughly 1:30 pm CDT, I count at least five reference to the program being “obliterated” in posts by Trump on Truth Social.

For example.

So, not only does it appear that Trump does not understand what “total obliteration” means, he seems to not be willing to understand that materials and other capabilities may have been relocated. Indeed, he is insistent that it could not have been moved. Via The Hill: Trump denies Iranians moved nuclear materials before US strikes.

President Trump on Wednesday maintained that nuclear materials were not moved prior to U.S. strikes on Iranian facilities, despite an internal preliminary assessment that indicated otherwise.

“We’re just the opposite. We think we hit them so hard and so fast, they didn’t get to move,” Trump said during a press conference at the NATO summit when asked if U.S. intelligence was able to assess whether materials were relocated from the sites.

However,

Whether Iranians managed to move some nuclear materials ahead of the U.S. strikes appears to be in question. 

Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has said the agency does not know the location of 900 pounds of enriched uranium from the sites.

“We do not have information of the whereabouts of this material. So, this is why I’m asking. We are making an assumption, which is not speculative or pure speculation, because Iran officially told me, ‘We are going to be taking protective measures, which may or may not include moving around this material,’” Grossi said on Fox News’s “The Story.”

This report from the BBC has some useful quotes that demonstrate both the childlike approach to international relations by the president and the way in which members of the administration are parsing their words: Trump pushes back after leaked report suggests Iran strikes had limited impact.

First, the president.

On Wednesday, while sitting alongside Nato Chief Mark Rutte, Trump initially acknowledged some uncertainty, saying the intelligence on the attack was “very inconclusive”.

But he then went further in his assessment, saying “it was very severe, it was [an] obliteration”.

When asked if the US would strike again should Iran resume its nuclear activities, Trump said: “Sure, but I’m not going to have to worry about that. It’s gone for years.”

Trump later likened the strikes to America’s atomic bombing of Hiroshima at the end of World War Two.

“I don’t want to use an example of Hiroshima, I don’t want to use an example of Nagasaki, but that was essentially the same thing – that ended a war,” he said.

Because they dropped big bombs in WWII, and we just dropped big bombs on Iran, so, you know, it’s practically the same thing! OBLITERATION = PEACE!

And then there is stuff like this from Hegseth.

Hegseth said the leak was politically motivated and insisted the bombs landed “precisely where they were supposed to”.

I am unaware of anyone of significance (or really, anyone not) who is claiming that the bombs didn’t land where they were supposed to. The question is one of policy efficacy, not the skill of American pilots.

Then there’s Rubio.

Rubio also cast doubt on the leaked report’s credibility, suggesting the contents had been distorted in the media and labelling the leakers as “professional stabbers”.

Is the credibility of the report really the issue? Isn’t the problem that Trump doesn’t like the contents? Maybe he should ask Secretary of State Witkoff what he thinks?

By the way, let’s not forget this.

Reporter: Your intelligence community said they have no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon?

Trump: My intelligence community is wrong. Who said that?

Reporter: Your DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Trump: She is wrong. pic.twitter.com/hq3n297wv3

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 20, 2025

While I am no fan of Gabbard, what this shows is a man who doesn’t care about intelligence, but prefers to think what he wants to think.

Here’s a useful report on the damage from the BBC: Damaged or destroyed – how much does leaked US report on Iran’s nuclear sites tell us? And, also via the BBC is: Satellite images reveal new signs of damage at Iranian nuclear sites.