Let's see: Did the U.S. ever let a good narrative influence its rigorous intelligence gathering on the war in the Middle East? The "prologue" begins in 2003, when the White House told the country, the world and itself that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be non-existent. Certainly, the U.S. would never again let powerful narratives take precedence over the search for truth. Or maybe not?
Unfortunately, the White House may be in the process of repeating this mistake. The controversy concerns Operation Midnight Hammer, in which American bombers and other aircraft hit Iran's nuclear facilities. The debate is not—and should not be—about whether the mission was militarily impressive and whether the pilots, including a woman, were heroes (yes and yes). It should focus on only one thing: Did it achieve its strategic goal?
That goal, at least as stated, was to end Iran's ability to build nuclear weapons or delay its efforts indefinitely. In light of this, Did Midnight Hammer finally succeed? It is impossible to give a definitive answer and the ambiguity may continue to exist for a long time. Obviously, however, this is also something that not only President Donald Trump and his national security team, but also American and international public opinion, cannot endure.
The story Trump told us after the U.S. strike was that Operation Midnight Hammer "eliminated" Iran's nuclear facilities. To this narrative he has now added his view that media outlets that have referred to conflicting intelligence assessments are "scum. They are bad people. They are sick." He went on to say that these are "fake news" traffickers who insult not only him but also the brave pilots who participated in the mission. In fact, as far as I know, no one has shown anything but respect for the execution of the mission, and no pilot has declared himself offended. This narrative is one of many attempts at disorientation.
Trump's most dedicated advisers, such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have taken on their roles on this media show. "Do you want to call it broken? Do you want to call it a loser? Do you mean that it has been eliminated? Pick a word," he told reporters on Thursday.
He then tried to present any doubt about the fate of Iran's nuclear program as a sign of "bad faith" by the press. "How about we celebrate" the mission, he stressed in feigned desperation. "How about talking about how special America is? That only we have these capabilities?" In fact, most of the first comments on this topic, including my own, started out just like that.
The other members of the Trump team have their own reasons for following this line. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of the secret services, is under particular pressure. In March, he testified to Congress that intelligence agencies believe Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon. "He's wrong," Trump recently responded when asked to comment on that assessment, while generally suspecting that Gabbard was out of line. (For the Senate briefing on Thursday, the president sent his national security adviser and CIA director, but not Gabbard.)
In an effort to de-escalate, Gabbard now strongly agrees with Trump's narrative: "The new information confirms what @POTUS [the U.S. president] has stated many times," she wrote in H. "Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed." Anyone who doubts this, he adds, is trying to "undermine the resolute leadership of President Trump and the brave soldiers and women" who carried out the mission.
The most restrained, and more professional of Trump's team remains Dan Kane, the chief of the Army General Staff. In his first comments after Midnight Hammer, he noted that the full evaluation will take time. In the second briefing, standing next to Hegseth, he did not refer to any new information from the secret services. Instead, it also switched to storytelling mode, with details about the attacks and service members.
But, what the facts say, you will wonder at this point. Well, we don't know yet, and that's the reason for all this turmoil. A preliminary assessment leaked by the Defense Intelligence Agency, a division of the Pentagon, showed that Midnight Hammer may have halted Iran's nuclear program by only a few months, but certainly not by years. It was also reported that Iran had transferred much of its enriched uranium from the struck sites to various other sites. Several European intelligence services have come to the same conclusion.
If true, these reports directly contradict Trump's narrative of strategic (as opposed to tactical) success. He and his team, therefore, are opting for other intelligence agencies, notably Israel's, which seems to have concluded that the U.S. strikes "hampered Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons for many years."
Anyone who remembers the conflicting narratives and the lack of irrefutable evidence in the run-up to the Iraq war should now start to get anxious. I do remember staying up all night, with a knot in my stomach, listening to Colin Powell's testimony to the United Nations Security Council in 2003.
At the time, the president should have taken into account the possibility that the adversary, despite the evidence, might not have weapons of mass destruction after all. This time, the president should consider the possibility that Iran, despite the impressive video from Ford, may still have the ability to build nuclear weapons.
But that would require intellectual humility. And this is not currently a priority for either the White House or many of its critics in Congress, the media and elsewhere. What a pity.
Anyone trying to learn from history should decide not to give in to confusing and ambiguous facts and resist adopting any narrative until it turns out to be true, even if it sounds good in the TV lens or in conversations between friends. For now, the only honest conclusion that can be drawn about the U.S. strike and its impact on Iran's nuclear program is this: We just don't know — and probably won't know for quite some time.
