CNN has dug in deep under the mountain of lies they’ve made in order to prop up the false narrative of serial misinformer Natasha Bertrand’s stenography for the anti-Trump deep state. During Monday afternoon’s CNN News Central, Bertrand was back at it, claiming that the Fordow site was only "severely damaged" on a "surface level" and mocked that the U.S. didn't even try to hit a different bunker site. But earlier in the day, a couple of experts more in the know dropped their own bunker busters on CNN and blew up their narrative.
Teed up by co-host Boris Sanchez to suggest that the images of excavation equipment at Fordow were more than just to access the bunker to begin with, Bertrand insisted the site was “severely damaged, at least on a surface level, by these massive penetrating bombs.”
Ignoring how Iran’s government and military had been thoroughly infiltrated by Israel’s Mossad intelligence, Bertrand mocked the U.S. for not even trying to strike the deep bunkers at the Isfahan facility: “…they didn't use those massive ordnance penetrator bombs because they were deemed to be potentially not effective against the underground structures at Isfahan, just given how deep those tunnels actually are.”
CNN serial disinformer Natasha Bertrand is still standing by her false narrative about the success of the U.S.'s strikes on Iran. She claims Fordow was only "severely damaged" on a "surface level" and suggests that the U.S. didn't even try to hit a different bunker.
— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) June 30, 2025
She omits… pic.twitter.com/0kcgKm8LzE
In reality, if there was a chance, the U.S. would have used them. Like at Fardow, they would have dropped multiple bunker busters in the same location to dig down to it. There’s a good chance that the U.S. didn’t strike Isfahan because they had intelligence that it wasn’t a worthwhile target.
But don’t take our word for it.
Earlier in the day CNN global affairs analyst and former National Security Council member Brett McGurk told The Situation Room co-host Wolf Blitzer that the Israelis “have complete intel dominance over Iran. They know where stuff is.”
Adding: “About 20,000 centrifuges have been destroyed at Natanz and Fordow. All the centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow, as Kirsten just said, are no longer operable.”
McGurk also called out those who had predicted World War III if the U.S. were to strike Iran and how, likewise, people were predicting the strike’s failure way too prematurely given what we know (Click “expand”):
There were predictions before this happened – when I was on the set about two weeks ago –uncontrollable war in the Middle East, hundreds of American casualties, if we entered. None of that happened. I think all of the assumptions that are going on now for what might happen to the program, we just have to take the time, let the Intel professionals do their work. They'll come up with a comprehensive assessment.
But even then, that will be based on a number of assumptions. What's Iran prepared to do after this setback? Would we see it? Would we be able to stop it? What will how will the diplomacy go?
So, I think we all have to approach this little humility. This was a successful operation overall. I think Iran is in deep trouble and I think the idea they're going to now lurch towards moving ahead with their nuclear program, I really think that is implausible. And if they do, we'll see it. And I think we'll have measures to stop it.
On the panel with McGurk was The Atlantic Council’s Kirsten Fontenrose (a former senior director of the National Security Council), who also suggested the Fordow strike was successful in taking out the sensitive centrifuges:
Remember, we are also hearing from places like scientific seismologists who are saying that the shock waves from the strikes would have taken out much more than even the bombs would have. So, when we think about dropping a bunker buster, we think about its impact. But it's more than that. It's also what happens once that bomb hits underground and reacts with the earth around it. So, we expect that most of the centrifuges are eliminated.
“And if you restarted the program, what does that mean? Is that enrichment? Is that a production facility for rotors? Is that fuel? What are you talking about?” she scoffed.
Yeah, what are you talking about Natasha?
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:
CNN’s The Situation Room
June 30, 2025
10:32:52 a.m. Eastern(…)
WOLF BLITZER: Kirsten, let me start with you. What's your assessment of how quickly Iran potentially could be back in enrichment, enriching uranium?
KIRSTEN FONTENROSE (The Atlantic Council, former Sen. Dir. National Security Council): The IAEA executive director is saying it's within months, but that is debated by the U.S. intelligence community. The CIA director told Congress last Friday he thinks that many of the facilities have been completely dismantled.
Remember, we are also hearing from places like scientific seismologists who are saying that the shock waves from the strikes would have taken out much more than even the bombs would have. So, when we think about dropping a bunker buster, we think about its impact. But it's more than that. It's also what happens once that bomb hits underground and reacts with the earth around it. So, we expect that most of the centrifuges are eliminated.
And if you restarted the program, what does that mean? Is that enrichment? Is that a production facility for rotors? Is that fuel? What are you talking about?
So yes, they could potentially start something if they were trying to send a signal. But how long would it be before they could make a bomb. Much, much longer. Dirty bomb, shorter timeline. Warhead, much longer timeline; it takes multiple facilities and many pieces of the process.
But we're assessing right now that the discussion is about whether or not you can talk them out of the intent to restart anyway. Can you give them a civilian program at that same site and then they don't need to enrich for a bomb at all? Can they even afford to enrich even if they had remnants of the material to start with? There are so many questions when, instead of just looking at whether or not they have some seed material, look at, do they have the scientists? Do they have the funding? Do they have the intent?
BLITZER: And do they have the guts to do it because they know if the Israelis or the U.S. found out about it, they would immediately launch retaliatory strikes.
FONTENROSE: Immediately.
BLITZER: Yeah. So, they have to have the guts to do that as well.
Brett, let me get your reaction to what the head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency said about Iran's ability to enrich uranium after those U.S. and Israeli attacks. Watch this and listen.
(…)
BLITZER: Can the world get that clarification, Brett, unless inspectors are left back into Iran?
BRETT MCGurk (former National Security Council): I think Wolf, let’s step back. First of all, what I think the Israelis demonstrated in this operation, they have complete Intel dominance over Iran. They know where stuff is. About 20,000 centrifuges have been destroyed at Natanz and Fordow. All the centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow, as Kirsten just said, are no longer operable.
Does Iran have a stash of centrifuges somewhere else? Maybe. Probably not. Centrifuge production facilities are destroyed. So, there's a lot of goods in Raphael's assessment. I know him pretty well. A lot of could, a lot of assumptions.
Look, Iran has been set back significantly. Ambassador Iravani, what you just showed. He's acting as if the world has not changed with what's just happened. Their nuclear program is set back. Some might say months. That's based on a number of assumptions that Iran cobbles together the pieces and parts that's left of the program and decides to now move with speed and dispatch. I think we would see that we'd be able to stop it. So, let's just kind of wait and see.
There were predictions before this happened – when I was on the set about two weeks ago –uncontrollable war in the Middle East, hundreds of American casualties, if we entered. None of that happened. I think all of the assumptions that are going on now for what might happen to the program, we just have to take the time, let the Intel professionals do their work. They'll come up with a comprehensive assessment.
But even then, that will be based on a number of assumptions. What's Iran prepared to do after this setback? Would we see it? Would we be able to stop it? What will how will the diplomacy go?
So, I think we all have to approach this little humility. This was a successful operation overall. I think Iran is in deep trouble and I think the idea they're going to now lurch towards moving ahead with their nuclear program, I really think that is implausible. And if they do, we'll see it. And I think we'll have measures to stop it.
And, you know, the Europeans here, interestingly, the Brits and the French are saying they are prepared to snap back all international sanctions by the end of this summer. If Iran does what Ambassador Iravani just said. So, there's a lot of tools here in the diplomatic playbook. There's a lot of intelligence going on. And right now, I think this is going fairly well, and we have to see.
(…)
11:47:27 a.m. Eastern
BLITZER: Based on everything we've seen, based on everything you're hearing, and what you know, how long do you think it potentially could be before Iran begins enriching uranium again?
JAMIE RUBIN: Well, first of all, it's not knowable. That's the problem. It's only really with inspectors on the ground with diplomatic regime that employs inspectors that we can actually answer that question. But I think we're talking about months, not years for the potential for enrichment of uranium.
Wolf, we've been talking about the Iranian nuclear program for more than 25 years, as you know, back when you were covering the Pentagon and the State Department and the White House and the Clinton administration. What we've learned over these 25-plus years is the most confidence we have that Iran will not go to a nuclear weapon comes when we have a diplomatic solution with inspectors on the ground. Military success is simply necessary maybe in certain cases, but it's not sufficient. We have to combine force with diplomacy, and unfortunately, the Israeli government and our government right now has not shown great skill in the diplomatic success department. Although, they have shown enormous skill, particularly the Israelis and the United States in this most recent raid in the military sphere. It's just not good enough if we want to be confident that Iran is not going to move to a nuclear weapon.
(…)
