Pete Hegseth’s angry news conference, where the US defence secretary roundly abused those media outlets and individuals who didn’t agree with him, certainly told us one thing.
That when reliable information eventually emerges from the battle damage assessment of the US attack on Iran’s Fordow nuclear plant, it won’t be accepted by everyone.
The whole issue has suddenly become politically toxic in Washington DC and will doubtless be fed into the spin dryer of vitriolic commentary and assertion that has been the most stand-out feature of this second Trump administration.
But what we did find out from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Dan Caine, was that the GBU-57 bunker buster bombs had been designed in some secrecy with exactly this sort of target in mind.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump-Iran live: US president reacts to Hegseth news conference
We also learned they all worked as per the test simulations, and that 12 were fired at six separate targets at Fordow and another two at a single target at the Natanz nuclear facility.
But the fierce argument over how to characterise the damage done in these attacks is really just a semantic spat. The two key questions are rather different.
There were toe-curling displays of affection towards ‘Daddy’ Trump at the NATO summit – but like it or not, it worked
CIA chief says Iran nuclear site ‘severely damaged’ by US strikes – despite leaked report claiming the impact was minimal
The truth about the success of US airstrikes on Iran lies buried deep underground
Firstly, will the Iranians decide to give up their quest for a nuclear weapon as a result of this attack, as the Syrians did in 2007 when the Israelis destroyed their Al Kibar nuclear reactor?
Or else will they go hell for leather for a nuclear weapon, as Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein did after the Israelis destroyed his nuclear reactor in 1981?
Read more:
Truth about success of US strikes lies deep underground
NATO chief refers to Trump as ‘daddy’
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
And secondly, if the Iranians decide to go again for a nuclear weapon, how long will it be before they are back at the nuclear threshold, where they were less than a month ago?
Will it be within a year? Or five years? Or longer?
When we have an answer to those two questions, then we can put some real perspective on whether the US bombing has really been a success.
