Nuclear Alert on Iran After US-Israeli Strikes: Propaganda or Real Threat?

In the last days of June 2025, international attention focused on a joint military operation by the United States and Israel against Iranian nuclear sites. The action reopened one of the most sensitive fronts in the global geopolitical landscape: that of Iran's nuclear program. Immediately after the operation, a disconcerting statement was released: according to a confidential briefing to the American Senate, Tehran would have been "just days" away from acquiring an atomic bomb .

However, several authoritative sources, including US intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have debunked this narrative ( ), highlighting the need for a more cautious reading. Let's analyze in depth what happened, what are the real sources of information and what role propaganda is playing in building a possible new war in the Middle East.

What Happened: The Iran Raids and Official Reactions

Between June 20 and 22, American and Israeli forces launched a series of coordinated strikes against Iranian nuclear targets in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. According to the Pentagon, the attacks – conducted using cruise missiles and bunker-buster bombs – have seriously damaged underground infrastructure and set back Iran’s nuclear program by at least 1 to 2 years.

Despite this, both President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have declared that the program has been “destroyed,” using strong language but not supported by any public official evidence.

Iran: Reaction and Diplomatic Threat

Tehran responded by suspending cooperation with the IAEA and threatening to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), warning that it could resume enriching uranium to military levels.

The Senate Briefing and the Origin of the Nuclear Alarm

What worried observers and analysts was a classified briefing to the US Senate held a few days after the attacks. Senator John Kennedy publicly stated that “Iran was days away from obtaining a nuclear bomb,” but when asked about the source of this information, he admitted that he did not know whether it was an American or Israeli assessment .

This statement has raised serious questions: Can crucial military and political decisions really be made on the basis of unverified intelligence? Is it acceptable for a senator to be unable to distinguish between a domestic assessment and one from a foreign ally?

What Official Sources Say: Propaganda vs. Intelligence The Role of Israeli Intelligence in US Politics

Israel has long had its own sophisticated and widespread intelligence structure, the Mossad, considered one of the most effective in the world. However, its assessments often respond to a national strategic logic , different from the American one. In the past, Israeli leaders have repeatedly declared that Iran was “months” away from obtaining the atomic weapon: these estimates have regularly proven wrong.

The risk is that Israeli intelligence will be used as diplomatic or media leverage to influence US foreign policy, in a context where institutional transparency is compromised.

Iran and the Paradox of the Permanent Threat

Iran, a signatory to the NPT, has consistently stated that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes. However, suspicions of a hidden nuclear weapon are cyclically fueled by media campaigns and think tanks linked to the Western military-industrial complex.

The key point is that an “imminent threat” that has been repeated for over twenty years loses credibility . If Iran were actually “days” away from the bomb today, it would mean that all previous assessments – including IAEA inspections – would have been useless or misleading.

Public Opinion and Political Dissonance

According to recent polls (Pew Research, June 2025), over 60% of Americans are opposed to a new conflict in the Middle East , while only 24% support direct intervention against Iran. Despite this, the US political-military apparatus appears determined to continue on a path that could lead to a dangerous escalation.

The risk is that, once again, as happened with Iraq in 2003, America will be dragged into an unnecessary war on the basis of distorted or misleading information .

A “completed” war, not wanted

What is emerging is a picture of a foreign policy disconnected from the popular will , driven by opaque assessments and external influences. The June 2025 strikes are just the beginning of a broader campaign, in which the nuclear scare narrative plays a central role.

If the United States does not firmly clarify the sources of its strategic decisions, the risk is that political independence will be sacrificed on the altar of allied geopolitics . The question, then, is not whether Iran really had the bomb, but who decided to say that it had it – and why.