Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Pentagon Press Briefing; News on Iran Strikes. Aired 8:30-9a ET
Aired June 26, 2025 - 08:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[08:30:00]
GEN. DAN CAINE, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: And we know that the trailing jets saw the first weapons function, and the pilots stated, quote, "this was the brightest explosion that I've ever seen. It literally looked like daylight."
Let me now turn to the bomber crews themselves, give you a few details about them. The crews that attacked Fordow were from the active-duty Air Force and the Missouri Air National Guard. The crews ranked from captain to colonel, and most were graduates of the Air Force Weapons School, headquartered at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. I will state for the record that there is no beach volleyball or football at the Air Force Weapons School. There were male and female aviators on this mission. And a crew member told me when I talked to them on video the other day that this felt like the Super Bowl, the thousands of scientists, airmen and maintainers all coming together.
One last story about people. When the crews went to work on Friday, they kissed their loved ones goodbye, not knowing when or if they'd be home. Late on Saturday night, their families became aware of what was happening. And on Sunday, when those jets returned from Whiteman, their families were there. Flags flying, and tears flowing. I have chills literally talking about this.
The jets rejoined into a formation of four airplanes, followed by a formation of three, and came up overhead Whiteman, proudly in the traffic pattern, pitching out to land right over the base, and landing to the incredible cheers of their families who sacrifice and serve right alongside their family members. Like I said, there were a lot of flags and a lot of tears. One commander told me, this is a moment in the lives of our families that they will never forget. That, my friends, is what Americas joint force does, we think, we develop, we train, we rehearse, we test, we evaluate every single day. And when the call comes to deliver, we do so.
I could not be more proud standing up here today of our joint force. I'm filled with gratitude that I get to tell their story.
And as we stand here right now, our forces remain on a high state of readiness in the region, prepared to defend themselves.
And one last thing. Our adversaries around the world should know that there are other DITRA (ph) team members out there studying targets for the same amount of time. And we'll continue to do so. Thank you very much. I apologize for the length. I look forward to
your questions.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just -- thank you, by the way, for that extensive work, the -- the lay down. I mean even -- do you have that laser pointer?
CAINE: Yes, sir.
HEGSETH: Thank you. Squaring me away, as always. I mean even -- even in just the public reporting, if you see the post-strike shaft of the three holes, the vast majority -- and fairly so, the vast majority of speculation has been -- those are the three strike points, when in actuality what you realize is these are the vents. These are the caps. The first munition took the cap off, and the other five went down the center hole, which, if you're planning the target, you would want it to be the direct one going to the bottom. These are the types of things that go into the planning for a strike that we wouldn't -- the Pentagon would not expect the press corps or the American people to initially understand. So, laying this information out is helpful.
But it's also why we ask for a beat, for a moment, for a day, or two, the opportunity to tell that story because, as the chairman said, these men and women that did this mission, they just want to do their job. They're not expecting their story to be told. They're not expecting the glory. They are grateful for the flags and the hugs of family. That's why they do the job.
But they also know they were a part of something historic. We know how historic it was. The chairman does. I know. Our staffs know. And so, that's why we are -- and the president of the United States knows. And that's why it's almost personal when we see the way in which leaks are used to try to disparage the outcome or muddy the waters about the impact of what happened without being responsible with information and allowing the professionals to assess and provide that information, just like the chairman did.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that information.
CAINE: Sure.
HEGSETH: And we welcome a few additional questions.
Yes, sir.
REPORTER: General, on Sunday you said final battle damage will take some time. And you also said, I think BDA is still pending and it would be way too early for me to comment on what may or may not still be there, that nuclear facility. That was just over three days ago. So, what has changed? Would you use the term obliterated as well?
CAINE: Sir, like I said, we don't do BDA. I'll refer that to the intelligence community. And --
[08:35:02] REPORTER: But you're talking with them. I mean, what changed in the past three days that make you so, you know, certain?
CAINE: Sir, I think I --
HEGSETH: I mean, I think I explained what changed. There was a great deal of irresponsible reporting based on leaks, preliminary information in low confidence. Again, when someone leaks something, they do it with an agenda. And when you leak a portion of an intelligence assessment, but just a little portion, just a little portion that makes it seem like maybe the strike wasn't effective, then you start a news cycle, whether its "The Washington Post" or Fox News or CNN or MSNBC, you start a news cycle that starts to call into question the efficacy -- no, that's -- that's why. So, you bring the chairman here, who's not involved in politics. He doesn't do politics. That's -- that's -- that's my lane to understand and translate and talk about those types of things. So, I can use the word obliterated. He could use defeat, destroyed, assessed, all of those things.
But, ultimately, we're here to clarify what these weapons are capable of, which anyone with, you know, two ears -- two eyes, some ears and a brain can recognize that kind of firepower, with that specificity, at that location and others, is going to have a devastating effect. So, we all recognize there will be days and weeks ahead. That's why yesterday I said, if you want to know what's going on at Fordow, you better go there and get a big shovel because no one's under there right now. No one's under there able to assess. And everyone's using reflections of what they see. And that's why the Israelis, the Iranians, the IAEA, the U.N., to a man and to a woman who recognized the capability of this weapon system are acknowledging how destructive it's been. So, that's what's -- that's what's changed.
REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) but how can you be so confident just three or four days later? What -- what changed?
HEGSETH: I -- see, this is -- this is a point. This is how difficult it is to actually manage. You just watched a video of what this weapon is capable of. We -- that's where we find our confidence is in the skill of men and women and the capability of the systems they employed and the recognition so far in the reflections that it was a highly successful mission.
CAINE: Sir, I think you could I'd -- I'd say go out -- the IC should be able to help you answer that question. They look at a variety, as the secretary has alluded to, we look at a variety of things. I don't do that. They do. All -- all different sources of intel, which I'd refer you to them to, to get clarity on, on the -- the instance (ph).
HEGSETH: But again, I go back to the IC, whether it's Director Ratcliffe or ODNI Gabbard. I read the statements at the beginning. They're the ones aggregating the intelligence, and they're saying nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over a number of years. Facilities were destroyed.
What have we got right here? REPORTER: Sir, you cited a body of credible intelligence to suggest
the -- the damage at Fordow and other places. What is that referring to, and when can we see it?
HEGSETH: I was reading from the CIA director's statement, which came out last night. CIA, again, they do the BDA. They do the assessment. CIA can confirm that a body of credible intelligence indicates -- it also goes on to say new intelligence from historically reliable and accurate sources and methods. Now, you can imagine, you can imagine the CIA director is going to be very careful about he -- how he articulates things of that sensitivity. Classified, secret, top secret, compartmentalized. He's going to know things that you're not going to know, that the press isn't going to know, and he's reflecting that the sources he's seeing are highly credible. They've -- they've given credible intelligence. They are those processes of giving credible intelligence in the past. And that's what he's basing it on.
REPORTER: Don't you think we need to see that?
HEGSETH: Do you have a top-secret clearance, sir?
REPORTER: Eventually --
HEGSETH: OK.
REPORTER: The American public want to se eit.
HEGSETH: Yes, sir. Yes.
REPORTER: Um.
HEGSETH: Yes, you.
REPORTER: I -- I wanted to -- I wanted to ask briefly just --
HEGSETH: No, not -- not you. Checkered shirt over there.
REPORTER: Oh, (INAUDIBLE), with "The Washington Times."
HEGSETH: Yes, sir.
REPORTER: Thank you, sir.
Anybody who's ever read a battalion S-2 report after a. fight knows that it's usually -- the initial report is usually wrong. Sometimes grossly so. Has this -- is what happened in this incident caused you all to sort of rethink the intelligence process or the dissemination or do you think it's just a matter -- I mean it's a process itself doesn't require any more adjustment?
HEGSETH: Well, I can tell you what the -- what the chairman told me in the Situation Room and reminded us all, which is, alongside what you just said, sir, is that the first -- first reports are almost always wrong. They're almost always incomplete, right? You -- you -- anything, whether it's the -- a squad level operation or a strategic level operation, the initial reflections you get are coming at you at -- at a -- at a high rate of speed from a lot of different sources. So, your job is to step back and assess them. And that's why we're urging caution about putting it -- premising entire stories on biased leaks to biased publications, trying to make something look bad. How about we take a beat, recognize first the success of our warriors, hold them up, tell their stories, celebrate that, wave an American flag, be proud of what we accomplished. And in the meantime, I can assure you, the chairman and his staff, the intelligence community, our staff and others are doing all the assessments necessary to make sure that mission was indeed successful.
[08:40:04]
Yes, right there.
REPORTER: Sir, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, Iran has recognized that their nuclear program was indeed severely damaged. But they also said that the U.S. strikes only strengthened their ability and their determination to complete their nuclear program. How do you respond to that, sir? Is that a provocation from Iran?
HEGSETH: Well, I would say Iran's going to have to say a lot of things right now in order to bolster their image, especially internally. You know, in the media there's a lot of things they'll say for domestic consumption. But we're watching very closely what they do. Again, that's the intel community. Our job, as the chairman -- I mean the chairman laid it out so beautifully. Our job is to be prepared. And how proud are you? How proud am I? I -- I didn't know the full story of those men and women 15 years ago who've been pointing at that target. That makes me proud to be an American. That's an awesome story. I hope we can tell more aspects of that in an unclassified way in the future. That -- that's -- that's a great thing to know. Our job is to be prepared when the commander in chief calls based on those assessments.
So, of course, our IC, the Intelligence Committee, will keep watching what Iran does and pay attention to that. But the president has created the contours, the opportunity for a deal for peace in something that the world said was intractable. That wasn't possible. And we got that peace, that ceasefire, that option, because of strength, because of his willingness to use American military might that no one else on the planet can do with the kind of planners and operators that the chairman just laid out.
Yes, sir. Right there. Yes.
REPORTER: Me, sir?
Just a quick question. There's public imagery available saying that highly enriched uranium was moved out of Fordow before the strikes. Is that accurate? Have you seen that?
And, Mr. Chairman, a question for you. Have you been pressured to change your assessment or give a more rosy intelligence assessment to us by any political factors, whether it's a president or the secretary? And if you were, would you do that?
CAINE: Yes, well, the -- that one's easy. No. No, I have not. And, no, I would not. My job, as the chairman, is to offer a range of options to the president and the national command authority to deliver the risks associated with each of those, and then take the orders of the national command authority and -- and go execute them.
This -- I've never been pressured by the president or the secretary to do anything other than tell them exactly what I'm thinking. And that's exactly what I've done.
REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE).
HEGSETH: There's nothing that I've seen that suggests that we didn't hit exactly what we wanted to hit in those locations.
REPORTER: That's not the question though. It's about highly enriched uranium. Do you have certainty that all the highly enriched uranium was inside the Fordow mountain, or some of it, because there were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance. Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved?
HEGSETH: Of course we're watching every single aspect. But, Jennifer, you've been about the worst. The -- the one who misrepresents the most intentionally. What -- what the president says --
REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) --
HEGSETH: I'm -- I'm -- I'm familiar.
REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) report about the ventilation shafts on Saturday night. And, in fact, I was the first to describe the B-2 bombers, the refueling, the entire mission with great accuracy. So, I -- I take issue with that.
HEGSETH: I appreciate you acknowledging that this was the first operation --
REPORTER: You have issues --
HEGSETH: The most successful --
REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) --
HEGSETH: Mission based on operational security that this department has done since you've been here. And I appreciate that.
REPORTER: I absolutely did.
HEGSETH: So --
REPORTER: I absolutely did.
HEGSETH: So, we're looking at all aspects of intelligence and making sure we have a sense of what was where. REPORTER: Secretary, why not acknowledge the female pilots that also
participated in this mission? The early messages that you sent out only congratulated the boys.
HEGSETH: So, when I say something like, our "boys and bombers," see, this is the kind of thing the press does, right? Of course, the chairman mentioned a female bomber pilot. That's fantastic. She's fantastic. She's a hero. I want more female bomber pilots. I hope the men and women of our country sign up to do such brave and audacious things. But when you spin it as, because I say our "boys and bombers" as a common phrase, I'll -- I'll keep saying things like that. Whether they're men or women, very proud of that female pilot, just like I'm very proud of those male pilots. And I don't care if it's a male or a female in that cockpit, and the American people don't care, but it's the obsession with race and gender in this department that's changed priorities. We don't do that anymore. We don't play your little games.
Yes, right there.
REPORTER: Can I follow, so do you know for certain that the uranium was removed from the facility before the B-2 struck?
HEGSETH: So, I'm not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be, moved or otherwise.
Yes.
REPORTER: Mr. Secretary, Kelly Meyer with "News Nation."
And just off the -- off the top, I want to say we're grateful for the service of these pilots and everybody that serves.
I wanted to ask you, the CIA statement said, when possible, they will provide updates and information to the public for transparency. And I believe that's what we're looking for here.
Do you commit to share the Defense Intelligence Agency report when it is ready so the American people can understand more about the intelligence assessment?
[08:45:07]
HEGSETH: Well, actually, the report that was discussed, this preliminary report, was a -- was what's called a restrike report. So, it comes to us to give us an assessment whether a target would need to be restruck, right? That's the reason why. So, based on internal feedback loop that we're supposed to have access to, unfortunately, someone took advantage of that. But whatever is supposed to be made public, will be. But whatever has to say sensitive will as well.
CAINE: Sir, can I just jump in?
You know, one of the things that -- that I'm trying to do through this journey that we're on together, of course, transparency, but also the requirement to really protect these capabilities. I guess times up. But -- so, there's a balance in there, right? The -- we do need to preserve options should the nation and the joint force be tasked to go do something again. So, I'm confident we'll find the middle ground, but there are some things that -- that, if asked, I'd -- I'd want to not release related to this.
HEGSETH: So, we're going to leave it right there.
I want to thank the heroism of our men and women in military -- in the military. What they accomplished is truly historic. Setting back the Iranian nuclear program, untold number of years. It was a devastating attack. We appreciate you covering it. Thank you very much.
CAINE: Yes, sir.
HEGSETH: Mr. Chairman, thank you.
REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) the Air Force and the Navy to talk a little bit more about their role, sir.
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, we've been listening to this for the last about 30 minutes. A lot to get to. And we've got -- we've got a lot of people to join us to discuss.
First and foremost, there was some new detail offered on the mission.
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes.
BOLDUAN: On the crews that pulled off this mission. We were going to be diving into. So, it's great to get some more information on that.
But at the same time, we do need to make clear that despite the emotional speech and outrage from the defense secretary, what he said about the DIA assessment is what CNN reported on.
SIDNER: Right.
BOLDUAN: His issue that he took about it being preliminary, about it being low-confidence. CNN reported on all of -- on all of this. I was looking back just to make sure that we had it all throughout the -- throughout the reporting process, CNN had reported that it is preliminary and, of course, can be updated, including these two parts.
"It is still early," we reported in our initial report, "for the U.S. to have a comprehensive picture of the impact of the strikes. None of the sources described how the D.A. assessment compares to the views of other agencies in the intelligence community. The U.S. is continuing to pick up intelligence, including from within Iran, as they assess the damage."
Also in CNN reporting, where he -- the -- the secretary took real issue and seemed very upset about it not being stated that this was -- there was low confidence stated in this DIA assessment.
SIDNER: It's in there.
BOLDUAN: Also in CNN reporting, including this, "the final U.S. military battle damage assessment by the DIA could take days or even weeks to complete, multiple sources familiar with the Pentagon's process told CNN. The initial DIA analysis was produced just 24 hours after the attack, according to one of the sources. Because it was only a preliminary analysis, its judgments were low-confidence," the sources said. It was not coordinated with the wider intelligence community, according to a U.S. official, and the document itself acknowledged that it could take weeks to produce a finalized assessment."
So, just to put so -- so --
SIDNER: It is literally what he said we did not report.
BOLDUAN: It's a -- it is a preliminary -- it is a preliminary report.
SIDNER: Yes.
BOLDUAN: The reporting was done.
SIDNER: Yes.
BOLDUAN: And now, to a lot of the questions that still remain, honest questions that everyone in that room should be asked, that he had been berating, the honest questions about any U.S. military operation, those do continue.
SIDNER: Yes. And we should also point out that on Wednesday we quoted Hegseth himself saying that this was a preliminary, low-confidence report. So, the reporting has been out there.
Let's get to our excellent panel that we have with us now. We've got CNN's Alayna Treene at the White House. Also with us, CNN's senior reporter Daniel Dale, retired General Wesley Clark, and -- the former NATO supreme allied commander, and our CNN global affairs analyst, Brett McGurk and Kim Dozier, and CNN political commentator Alyssa Farah Griffin.
Just in, hot off the streets, first, we're going to get to you, Brett.
I am curious to hear from you. I'm -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm dying to hear from you because we saw Trump tease the possibility, as he put it on Truth Social, the news conference will prove both interesting and irrefutable. Did you hear or see any new evidence that leads you to agree that Iran's nuclear capabilities have been obliterated, which is what Donald Trump has been saying, and now Pete Hegseth has said.
BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, Sara, good morning.
Here's what I heard. And I know -- I know Dan Caine pretty well. I served with him over the years.
So, there are three levels of a BDA, a battle damage assessment. And the first level is imagery, probably the first 24 hours, and what you're seeing, OK.
[08:50:03] Level two is what we just heard. And -- and I thought there was news there from Chairman Caine. He described that all the weapons did exactly what they were designed to do. And there was information there that had been, I know, heavily classified over the years, that they went down the three ventilation shafts. And they did that successfully. So, that means you're at a level two BDA. Everything worked as designed.
Level three BDA is still being prepared. And this is what could take some time. That's when you're collecting information from all sources. And what's so complicated here is, it's not just destruction, it's the nuclear capabilities. And you need experts in the Department of Energy's -- the nuclear security agency called NNSA. It's some of the best experts in the world. That work is going to take time.
I'm quite confident, everything I know about this mission, that the Iranian nuclear program is significantly set back. A word like obliterate is -- that will -- that's a term of art you'll never hear from a military professional or intelligence professional. Sometimes presidents speak differently than those kind of careful professionals. But I think as the time goes by, we're going to see this program has been significantly, significantly set back. And then a lot of assumptions we'll go into, is it year. Is it how long? And that's going to come.
I would just -- I would really urge patience as this work goes on. We honestly don't know all the details. But I think this mission did go as it was planned. The news I saw in there was those munitions went down those shafts, and that means that Fordow is probably pretty destroyed and unusable. Certainly the centrifuges, if they were there, cannot be spun again.
SIDNER: Yes, and we've heard that from the IAEA and others. And just to your point, I just want to mention what General Dan Caine said. He said it was determined that all six weapons at each vent at Fordow went exactly where they were meant to. And that's something new that we learned.
BOLDUAN: And on that point, General Clark, what -- just as that was described by the -- by General Caine, I mean, he talked about how, in the days ahead of the attack, there is evidence they saw that they had attempted to cover the shafts with concrete in order to protect them, and how weapon one was intended and did blow -- forcibly remove that cap that they put on the shaft. I found those details of kind of the subsequent, weapon one was intended for this, two, three and four and five, and then six was the flex weapon to allow one of the -- if one of the preceding steps didn't work. I mean, talk about a coordination there. What did you hear in that? And -- and -- and just your reaction to everything that we heard.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: I thought it was an extremely detailed and credible presentation. When I -- I heard it, I was very proud of the work that was done by the two specialists in DETRA (ph). I thought General Caine did an excellent job. Low key, non-political, pride showing. And, honestly, I'm really proud of the work they did. I think it leaves, as Brett said, you still need to know what the
final analysis is on this, but you've got to be really proud of our whole military establishment and -- and the very objective way in which General Caine presented the results. I think he did an outstanding job on a very difficult morning making this presentation. Really proud of the -- the whole operation. I hope that it really did set them back.
We don't know about the missing uranium. We don't know about alternate locations. We don't know about the other 3,000 people that have knowledge of this program. And we don't know the intent of the Iranian government. So, a lot of questions. But, boy, I'm proud of that military operation. They are really good.
SIDNER: Now to you, Kim. Unlike General Caine, Pete Hegseth spent a lot of time berating the media. More time berating the media than giving us new information. And even though what he said was actually reported, he said it wasn't, but it was actually reported, what does all this signal to you? Why this press conference? Why now? And spent so much time berating the media.
KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, Hegseth himself explained it when he said, look, my role is political. General Caine's is the military. He wanted to argue the point that if the media reports in any manner, shape or form that makes the Trump administration look like it didn't totally accomplish its goals, that there's any daylight between what the Pentagon is saying about the effect of the strikes and what the intelligence community and Donald Trump are saying, he wanted to highlight that.
And it's a -- it's an argument inside the Pentagon that actual military press officers have to wrestle with every day.
[08:55:04]
They often find themselves trying to explain, either to the political appointees or to the general's officers that, look, we've got to tell the military story, warts and all, versus those who say, no, we've got to be, you know, the press should be cheerleaders and build us up at all times.
I think somebody like General Dan Caine, who I got to interview during the ISIS fight in Iraq, he is very understanding of the media's mission. And so, I think that's also why he was very careful Sunday morning to say, we don't have all the information in yet. But Hegseth is doing his job, which is, he's performing as much for President Trump in this press conference this morning, beating up everyone President Trump doesn't like, CNN, Jennifer Griffin from Fox came in for a beating. So that he's told the base, we're the good guys and any of the press that says anything bad about us, they're the black hats in this situation.
BOLDUAN: Alyssa, you've been in that room many a times. You have faced the honest questioning on military operation. That is the job of everyone in that room. When you see -- and you see the very different presentations from General Caine and Pete Hegseth, as Kim is pointing to, why do you think Secretary Hegseth continues to take this approach when they could just say, it is preliminary, just as you've reported, and we're still gathering information, stand by for the full assessment. Why do you think that continues? What impact do you think it has?
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So, Secretary Hegseth has an audience of one. Donald Trump Truthed out that this was going to be a game changing press conference. So, Hegseth knew who he was performing for. His job was to attack the media and to defend this as the most successful operation.
But I was incredibly impressed with General Caine.
BOLDUAN: Yes.
SIDNER: Yes.
GRIFFIN: I think many of us were kind of concerned when he leapfrogged over four stars, who were more in line to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And he conducted himself exactly how he should. He focused on the pride he had in the troops, the success of the operation. And he pointed out something we shouldn't forget in this. There have been plans for about 15 years, spanning multiple administrations to hit Fordow. So, this is not something that was out of step with things that have been considered by previous presidents. It's that there was a target of opportunity, and Donald Trump chose to do it.
And I would encourage the White House, take a beat. You're going to get more assessments. You're going to hear from the Israelis. The Europeans will very likely do their own assessments. We've heard from one of 17 intel agencies with this DIA report.
BOLDUAN: Right.
SIDNER: Right.
GRIFFIN: Being almost overly argumentative and defensive is making it look like a bigger story than it needs to be because all indications point to, as McGurk said, this very likely set the Iranians back significantly. And I'd also remind folks, 79 percent of Americans believe that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. So, attacking the public for wanting to have answers to questions about how successful this was is such a fool's errand. We actually just simply want to know, is the world safer today or is it not? Hegseth would be wise to answer that.
BOLDUAN: And -- and does the U.S. need to commit more military --
GRIFFIN: Exactly.
BOLDUAN: Military might to pulling off the end goal?
GRIFFIN: Exactly.
BOLDUAN: Yes. SIDNER: I want to go to Daniel Dale, who is our fact checker, as you well know.
What did you hear in this press conference that rang true or that rang false?
DANIEL DALE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, a few things here.
The secretary referred to fake news CNN, and then immediately proceeded to effectively confirm CNN's reporting. Again, emphasized that this intelligence assessment was preliminary, made with low confidence. That's exactly, again, what CNN reported.
He also tried to back up President Trump's assertion that these nuclear facilities were completely and totally obliterated by forcefully reading out quotes from others who did not say the same thing. He read quotes asserting that the nuclear sites had been badly damaged, severely damaged, the strikes had done enormous damage. None of that is synonymous with complete obliteration.
The secretary also asked rhetorically if the media had been reporting about the enormous challenge on pilots of conducting a bombing mission this long. Well, guess what, CNN did. A couple days ago, our Michael Williams wrote a story talking to pilots who had been involved in somewhat similar missions that began that this mission was a, quote, "massive undertaking" that required B-2 bomber pilots to test the limits of human endurance during a 37-hour mission. So, yes, CNN reported this.
And then, fourth, just in passing, the secretary asserted that this was the most complex military operation in history. I guess that's something I can't definitively fact check, but I'm sure that some military historians would take issue with that and point to things like say D-day, for example.
BOLDUAN: Daniel, thanks so much.
We are now -- time is flying. We are now at the top of the hour for another hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL. Thank you so much for joining us.
And if you are just joining us at the top of this hour, we have been listening to what was billed as a highly consequential press conference coming out of the Pentagon.
[09:00:05]
It was with the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, taking...