Who says the truth here?

Iranian nuclear program

The dispute over secret information is growing

How much have the massive US attacks actually harmed the Iranian nuclear program on three systems? In Washington, this question ensures a conflict.

The question of details on the extent of the damage to the Iranian nuclear program continues to cause unrest. In Washington, a political conflict about the exchange of knowledge has apparently flared up. The White House wants to inform the US Congress on Thursday, but apparently plans to restore the intelligence information.

As the US news portal “Axios” and the “Washington Post” report, the White House is expected to send four of its highest security officers to inform MPs in the congress: Defense Minister Pete Hegseth, Foreign Minister Marco Rubio, CIA director John Ratcliffe and General Dan Caine. According to reports, however, an important personnel are not on the list: the director of the national secret services, Tulsi Gabbard.

The background is said to be a first assessment of the military secret service DIA. According to the US attacks, the Iranian nuclear program has probably only been thrown back by a few months. The White House criticized the publication of knowledge of the expert opinion classified as “strictly secret”. Trump rejected the media reports as “fake news”. At the NATO summit in the Haag, he said in front of journalists with a view to the nuclear facilities: “I think it was a total extinction.” He spoke of a “perfect operation” of the US military. Read the background here.

Israel had started a war against his arch enemy Iran a good ten days ago. The Iranian nuclear program and the development there wanted to stop ballistic rockets with massive air strikes against destinations across the country. The USA switched on: B-2 fighter planes attacked two Iranian nuclear facilities with bunker-breaking bombs of type GBU-57 at the weekend. An American submarine fired Tomahawk marching aircraft onto a third complex.

In addition to the contradictory intelligence information, there is another discrepancy on the information from the US government: According to President Trump, the US attacks on Iran were based on a program for the development of nuclear weapons. This emerged from a letter published on the Weiße House website (local time) to the spokesman for the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson. So far, however, the US intelligence services had stated that such a program did not exist. Trumps are therefore raising new questions about the information he was based on when he ordered the US attack last Sunday.

Tulsi Gabard had testified in March that the US intelligence agencies had been assessed that Iran was not in the process of building a nuclear weapon. Trump later referred to Gombard’s assessment as “wrong” and, according to information from insiders, revealed it in the war between Iran and Israel in the assessment of the role of the United States. The fact that Bombard should now not be included in the congress in order to talk about their view of the opposing statements is particularly opposed to resistance in the ranks of the Democrats.

For example, Charles Schumer, the democratic minority leader in the Senate, asked the White House on Wednesday to “reverse the exchange of the exchange of confidential information. “The government has no right to block the congress on national security issues,” said Schumer in the Senate. “The senators have the right to information, and the government is legally obliged to inform the congress about the current events abroad.”

An anonymous high-ranking official from the Trump government answered the “Washington Post” at the request of the “Washington Post”: “Ratcliffe will represent the secret services”. The media did something out of Abbey, which it was not.

On Wednesday, Ratcliffe delivered an assessment of the CIA to the Iranian nuclear facilities that strengthened Donald Trump’s statements. The US attacks in Iran had caused serious damage to Tehran’s nuclear program. Ratcliffe explained that the reconstruction of the important destroyed nuclear facilities would take “years”. The new findings are based on a source that has proven to be “reliable and correct” in the past. The CIA continues to analyze the consequences of the attacks.