Trump lashes out at media outlets for downplaying Iran strike impact

By Al Mayadeen English
Source: Agencies
23 Jun 2025 23:06

Trump lashed out at mainstream media for downplaying the effectiveness of US airstrikes on Iran, despite conflicting assessments from US officials and international agencies.

Listen

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters upon arriving at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, N.J., Friday, June 20, 2025 (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

According to the New York Times, Washington media circles were expecting an official response from President Trump to the Iranian missile strike. Instead, his first statement on social media lashed out at American news networks, accusing them of undermining his claims about the destruction of Iranian nuclear sites.

On Monday, Trump escalated his media war, accusing mainstream outlets of downplaying what he called a successful US military operation against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. The strikes, which hit Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, marked a major intensification of Washington's pressure campaign on Tehran.

On Truth Social, Trump claimed the targeted facilities were "totally destroyed," and lashed out at specific journalists and media networks for allegedly spreading misinformation.

"Only the Fake News would say anything different in order to try and demean, as much as possible, And even they say they were 'pretty well destroyed!' Working especially hard on this falsehood is Allison Cooper of Fake News CNN, Dumb Brian L. Roberts, Chairman of 'Con'cast, Jonny Karl of ABC Fake News, and always, the Losers of, again, Concast's NBC Fake News. It never ends with the sleazebags in the Media, and that's why their Ratings are at an ALL TIME LOW — ZERO CREDIBILITY!" Trump wrote.

However, multiple official assessments contradict the former president's claims. Both Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine have described the extent of the damage as "severe" but stressed that the full impact remains unconfirmed, especially given the fortified, subterranean nature of the Fordow facility — intentionally designed to resist aerial assault. The Pentagon has stated that it is still awaiting final intelligence reports. Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not conducted an independent on-site verification and refrained from making any conclusions regarding the extent of the damage.

Iran, meanwhile, issued its first official report on Sunday through the National Nuclear Safety System Center, which confirmed that all critical infrastructure across the three sites remained intact. No radiation leaks were detected, and monitoring systems showed normal operation. Iranian MP Manan Raeisi, representing the Qom district where Fordow is located, dismissed Trump's statements as "false and exaggerated," asserting that "most of the impact was surface-level and easily repairable."

Adding further weight to Tehran's version of events, Saudi Arabia's Nuclear and Radiological Regulatory Commission confirmed it had not detected any radiation in the kingdom or wider Gulf region following the US strikes, a significant independent verification that undermines claims of major structural destruction.

In the diplomatic realm, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio extended an offer to resume nuclear negotiations "tomorrow." But Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi firmly rejected the proposal, stating, "the door to diplomacy should always be open, but now... is not the case." He condemned Washington's actions as a betrayal of dialogue and reaffirmed that Iran alone would determine the nature and timing of its response.

Strategic Folly

For many observers, this latest military gambit by Washington is viewed not as a show of strength but as an act of strategic desperation. Former US Marine intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter echoed this sentiment in an interview with Al Mayadeen on Sunday, dismissing the airstrikes as a symbolic gesture aimed more at salvaging political credibility than achieving any real military objective.

Similarly, Earl Rasmussen, a retired US Army lieutenant colonel and former vice president of the Washington-based Eurasia Center, issued a scathing critique of the strikes, calling the decision to authorize them "perhaps the most stupid decision of any President." Speaking to Russia's RIA Novosti, Rasmussen condemned the attacks on Iranian nuclear assets as reckless, illegal, and based on flawed intelligence.

"The decision to support Israel was bad enough, but the decision to directly become involved, at the request of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and bombing Iran, is perhaps the most stupid decision of any President," he stated.

Drawing parallels with the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, Rasmussen argued that the strikes were equally, if not more, ill-conceived. "These attacks look even more stupid," he said, adding that the operation directly contradicted the unanimous findings of the US Intelligence Community, which had found no evidence that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon. "Very poorly done and directly undercutting the Director of National Intelligence," he concluded.