By Clifford D. May
President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth were hopping mad last week over attempts to minimize what they had achieved through the deployment of B-2 stealth bombers and Massive Ordnance Penetrators against the nuclear weapons facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a nation-state committed to jihad against America and its allies.
In case you missed this skirmish: Someone leaked to a CNN reporter a classified, preliminary and 鈥渓ow-confidence鈥 assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency, one of 18 federal intelligence agencies, assessing that Tehran鈥檚 nuclear weapons program had not been seriously set back.
That contradicted Mr. Trump鈥檚 claim that the regime鈥檚 key nuclear weapons sites had been 鈥渙bliterated.鈥
Other media outlets soon echoed the leaked assessment, setting up the narrative of 鈥渃onflicting reports鈥 and a weighty debate over whether Operation Midnight Hammer succeeded.
That is what the leaker intended, presumably because he (or she) is anti-Trump, anti-Israel, an isolationist, a 鈥渞estrainer鈥 or some combination of the above.
The CNN reporter, Natasha Bertrand, has a history of promoting false, partisan narratives. Check out, for example, her coverage of Hunter Biden鈥檚 laptop and the Steele dossier.
Commentator Glenn Greenwald, a leftist and no Trump fan, has written: 鈥淭here was arguably nobody in media other than Rachel Maddow who promoted and ratified that [Russiagate] hoax as aggressively, uncritically and persistently as Bertrand.鈥
Over the past few days, credible sources have made additional information about the impact of the strike public. On Monday, CIA Director John Ratcliffe said: 鈥淚ran鈥檚 nuclear program has been severely damaged. Key nuclear facilities have been completely destroyed 鈥 [which] leads me to believe that Iran鈥檚 nuclear program may be set back permanently.鈥
Whatever the final 鈥渂attle damage assessment,鈥 shouldn鈥檛 we expect Iran鈥檚 supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to attempt to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program, perhaps by establishing a secret enrichment plant where he would boost any uranium he may still possess to weapons grade? Yes, of course, because 鈥淒eath to Israel鈥 and 鈥淒eath to America鈥 are the clearly stated goals of his 鈥渞evolutionary鈥 theology.
However, as noted by Andrea Stricker, a technical expert and colleague at my think tank, the United States and Israel may learn of such work and, if they do, they are likely to 鈥渂omb the site and use that as a reason to carry out more strikes. Moreover, the weaponization route, construction of a nuclear device, is likely unavailable to Iran due to Israel鈥檚 strikes on those facilities, equipment, documentation, and scientists.鈥
As I often say: There are no permanent victories, only permanent battles.
Returning to the communications battle, there鈥檚 an irony I don鈥檛 want you to miss.
Just days before Ms. Bertrand was constructing the narrative that Tehran鈥檚 nuclear weapons program had survived the bunker busters, CNN鈥檚 chief international anchor, Christiane Amanpour, was asserting that Tehran didn鈥檛 have a nuclear weapons program at all but might want to build one in response to Israeli aggression.
The details: Two days before America鈥檚 stealth bombers struck, in what was billed as an 鈥渆xclusive interview鈥 with Majid鈥疶akht鈥慠avanchi, deputy foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ms. Amanpour referenced the Israeli campaign against military targets in Iran and asked: 鈥淒o you now think that, given this clear attack on your facilities and your conventional weapons, if you survive, will Iran decide to become a nuclear weapons state?鈥
He replied: 鈥淲e do not believe in nuclear weapons. 鈥 Nuclear weapons have no place in our defensive doctrine.鈥
Ms. Amanpour could have followed up by asking why, if that鈥檚 the case, his government had buried a uranium enrichment plant under a mountain at Fordow, why it had spent tens of billions of dollars on centrifuges to enrich uranium to near weapons grade, why it had been developing ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads to American cities, what explanation he had for the Amad Plan (a project indisputably aimed at developing nukes), and why, after all this time and expense, nuclear power accounted for barely 2% of Iran鈥檚 energy production?
Instead, she chose to say: 鈥淒eputy Foreign Minister Majid鈥疶akht鈥慠avanchi, thank you very much indeed for joining us, and we hope that we can talk to you again.鈥
Ms. Amanpour is hardly the only major media personality who prefers spinning to probing.
Piers Morgan, whose CNN show was canceled in 2014, is viciously anti-Israel and consistently platforms antisemites on his YouTube show.
The Associated Press acts as stenographer for the 鈥淕aza Health Ministry,鈥 an arm of Hamas that routinely provides fabricated facts and figures.
The BBC, for which I had the utmost respect when I was a correspondent in Africa schlepping around a shortwave radio the size of a breadbox, has become reflexively and shamefully anti-Israel.
I want to be fair. CNN has highly professional journalists. I would hope they are embarrassed and, at least privately, are urging their bosses to rein in colleagues who habitually misinform and disinform and, by doing so, further damage CNN鈥檚 credibility and integrity.
I鈥檓 going to conclude on a personal note: It was 50 years ago this month that I began making my living as a reporter in the fervent belief that I had chosen a noble vocation, that my job was to ask tough questions and get to the truth.
That鈥檚 at least part of the reason it gets my goat that so many celebrity journalists have chosen to act as propagandists for tyrants and useful idiots for terrorists.
鈥 Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a columnist for The Washington Times and host of the 鈥淔oreign Podicy鈥 podcast.