‘It was almost comical to watch him’: Rep. Moulton on Secy. Hegseth’s demeanor during Iran briefing

Trump Doubles Down as Intelligence Disputes Iran Nuclear Strike Claims: Confusion, Contradiction, and Fallout

In the wake of President Trump’s declaration that the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities had “obliterated” the regime’s enrichment capabilities, a whirlwind of conflicting intelligence and political reaction has thrown the narrative into disarray—raising not only doubts about the success of the military operation but also about the credibility of America’s leadership in navigating the nuclear standoff.

The controversy began almost immediately after the strikes, with President Trump asserting that “Iran did not move enriched uranium” before the attack and insisting that the country’s nuclear program had been crushed. Yet this strong rhetoric quickly came under scrutiny. Preliminary U.S. intelligence reports suggested that key nuclear materials might have been relocated in advance of the strike, complicating assessments of the mission’s effectiveness.

The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog also issued a cautious warning: while the physical facilities were damaged, there was no clear evidence that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been neutralized. “Frankly speaking,” he noted, “one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there.”

This uncertainty has reignited broader concerns about the strategic communication—or lack thereof—emanating from the White House. Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a former Marine Corps officer who served four tours in Iraq, bluntly accused the Trump administration of misleading the public. “They are outright lying when they say the program was completely obliterated,” Moulton stated in an interview following a classified intelligence briefing.

According to Moulton, the briefing failed to confirm the president’s claim. “We don’t fully know what was destroyed. That’s not how it works—you need time for a proper battle damage assessment. The President declared victory before the facts were in.”

He also criticized the disjointed messaging from Trump allies. Fox News contributor and former military officer Pete Hegseth had echoed the president’s claim of total destruction just hours after the strikes—standing mere feet from General Cain, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told reporters that it was “too early” to assess the impact.

“The contrast was striking,” Moulton said. “General Cain was measured. Hegseth looked like he was reading a carefully scripted statement to avoid contradicting Trump, but also to avoid flat-out lying again.”

Further complicating matters is Tehran’s public denial that any nuclear talks with the U.S. are scheduled, even as President Trump insists that diplomacy is underway. This contradiction has not gone unnoticed. “If Trump is claiming talks that don’t exist, what else is he making up?” Moulton asked.

Still, there is relief that the fragile truce between the two nations has so far held. Military analysts warn, however, that this is likely a temporary calm rather than a sign of lasting de-escalation.

As experts weigh the strike’s impact, one central concern looms large: How quickly could Iran rebuild?

Intelligence assessments suggest that Iran’s ability to reconstitute its nuclear capabilities—particularly uranium enrichment using centrifuge cascades—could be restored in a matter of months. Worse, some fear the regime could bypass reconstruction entirely and obtain a warhead from a rogue state like North Korea.

“In the end,” Moulton emphasized, “there is no military solution that ensures long-term security. The only way to truly prevent Iran from getting the bomb is through verifiable, enforceable inspections. That requires diplomacy.”

This marks a stunning reversal of posture for many Republicans, who once condemned President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal as naïve. “Now, even the hawks are admitting we need to return to negotiations,” Moulton said. “All of this—military action, sanctions, brinksmanship—it still comes down to whether we can get back to a deal that works.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration finds itself under increasing pressure from both sides of the aisle. Skepticism about the president’s handling of classified intelligence, as well as his disregard for military caution, is growing.

In the classified briefing attended by lawmakers, Moulton described a stark difference in tone and presentation between Trump’s civilian appointees and military officers. “Rubio walked us through things calmly. General Cain was honest. But Hegseth—he was clearly walking on eggshells, reading from a script, afraid to say anything not vetted.”

This hesitance underscores what many in Congress see as a serious credibility gap. “You can’t wage war and conduct diplomacy effectively if nobody believes you,” Moulton warned. “That includes our allies, our adversaries—and even our own troops.”

Despite Trump’s insistence on success, many within the Pentagon remain cautious. The Pentagon’s own analysts are reportedly still combing satellite imagery, intercepted communications, and sensor data to determine what damage, if any, was inflicted on critical infrastructure.

The administration’s claims also face a diplomatic test. European and Middle Eastern allies have not endorsed Trump’s assertion of a crushing victory. Several EU officials have privately expressed concern that overstatement could derail future negotiations or embolden Iranian hardliners.

Iran itself, while issuing standard denunciations of U.S. aggression, has been uncharacteristically quiet about the scope of damage. That, experts say, may point to something both sides want to avoid acknowledging: a strike that was painful but not crippling.

“If Iran had suffered real, strategic damage,” one intelligence official told reporters anonymously, “they’d be shouting about it, playing the victim for the international community. Their silence tells us they’re regrouping—and possibly preparing to respond in their own time.”

And as the Senate shifts focus toward Trump’s controversial “Big Beautiful Bill,” which includes defense and tax provisions that could add $4.5 trillion to the national debt, critics worry that the distraction of domestic politics will sap momentum for meaningful Iran policy.

“This is the worst time to be fumbling the ball,” Moulton warned. “You’ve got nuclear ambiguity, an overstretched military, and a president who seems more concerned with headlines than hard facts.”

While Trump continues to project confidence, declaring Iran’s nuclear ambitions “finished,” the truth is far murkier. With assessments still incomplete and mistrust deepening, the stakes remain perilously high.

As one senator remarked quietly after the briefing, “You don’t declare checkmate when you haven’t even seen all the pieces on the board.”