I'm skeptical. This is attributing something to 4D chess when there's a simpler explanation.

One of the reasons we spend so much money on DIA is so they can do exactly what this report seems to have done: provide early assessments, with confidence intervals, of things like trans- and post-attack damage.

The fact that the report text said that DIA made the assessment with low confidence, to me at least, makes it more credible as a real report.

History shows us that it is often the case that different parts of the intelligence community have legitimate disagreements about assessments and confidence, so it sure wouldn't be new that, e.g. NSA, CIA, and DIA all have different opinions about the impact of the strikes.

I'm skeptical. This is attributing something to 4D chess when there's a simpler explanation.

One of the reasons we spend so much money on DIA is so they can do exactly what this report seems to have done: provide early assessments, with confidence intervals, of things like trans- and post-attack damage.

The fact that the report text said that DIA made the assessment with low confidence, to me at least, makes it more credible as a real report.

History shows us that it is often the case that different parts of the intelligence community have legitimate disagreements about assessments and confidence, so it sure wouldn't be new that, e.g. NSA, CIA, and DIA all have different opinions about the impact of the strikes.

We congratulate our airmen for a great mission, but the unsung heros are the members of Israel's Mossad who were the boots on the ground. We won't hear how many lost there lives leading up to and including this mission, like our CIA are our unsung heros that we can't report their loss and expose what they were doing and others.

Much is being made in the media about some enriched Uranium that might have shipped out before the strike. Commenting on that, one of the experts said that doesn't put them as close to a bomb as is being assumed.

Even if they could find the centrifuges to complete the enrichment, the final enriched uranium has to be "metalized" to produce a bomb, and all that equipment was at Isfahan which was destroyed.

Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it treason.

That itself is really scary that you feel that way.

I think they get around that limitation by using synthetic aperture radar.

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is one definition of treason.

Edit: With Mossad on the ground, it's doubtful anything was moved to anywhere without them knowing about it. They might have been driving the trucks.

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is one definition of treason.

Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it treason.

That itself is really scary that you feel that way.

No funnier than those that claimed complete obliteration.

In reality, both viewpoints should have low confidence in the days after. At least one viewpoint admitted that.

No secret that I'm not a fan of the current admin (still lamenting Pence didn't get his shot), but I really liked what we did, and very much hope there was obliteration.

I don't. Did they try to overthrow the government? Did the leak intentionally damage the the government?

No, and no. It simply leaked an assessment contrary to what was being said in public.

Was it wrong? Sure. Jail time deserved? Absolutely. Treasonous? I don't think so, but I'm sure there are those more knowledgeable of the definition than I am. That's a pretty low bar.

I don't. Did they try to overthrow the government? Did the leak intentionally damage the the government?

No, and no. It simply leaked an assessment contrary to what was being said in public.

Was it wrong? Sure. Jail time deserved? Absolutely. Treasonous? I don't think so, but I'm sure there are those more knowledgeable of the definition than I am. That's a pretty low bar.

Wait, were they not a threat, or were they a threat but we only set them back a few months?

ALL of these leaks are problematic!

We have to realize that all of this political maneuvering with the intelligence apparatus is dangerous and WILL have consequences.

It's dumb that they're even having this discussion because it's about a lot more than just that one facility. Here's what I wrote on another forum a couple of days ago: "First, I'm not inclined to believe leaked "intel assessments" that are 2 days post-strike and don't include all-source intel like humint, sigint, etc. Second, that strike definitely put them back on their heels. They used to think we were afraid of them, now they know we won't accept them having a nuke. We went in unscathed the first time and can and will go back again if required. If you don't give the inspectors unlimited access, we'll just do that job militarily."

Someone who wants to make the administration look bad leaks an initial assessment that is marked with low confidence. There are many reasons for low confidence ratings, but strictly relying on an IMINT analysis to assess the capability to an underground structure seems like a pretty obvious one to me. A FULL intel analysis will not only assess the physical capability of the facility to continue with the mission, but also the willingness of the regime to continue with their actions. Them merely knowing that we are monitoring the facility 24/7/365 and can strike on a moment's notice with literally zero notice on their part will influence their actions. On more than one occasion during the counter-terrorism war, we got intelligence that the actors were not going to continue along whatever path they were on before we were able to physically destroy their ability to perform such actions simply because it became obvious we were well on our way to doing just that.

But, the damage goes well beyond this one strike. By using intel assessments, leaked or not, as a political weapon, you will influence the willingness of the agencies to produce assessments that are not flattering for the administration. We saw that happen during previous administrations with the CENTCOM intel manipulation scandals, etc. While the individual analysts may or may not be influenced, the willingness of supervision to push up those assessments to higher levels will be. I know first-hand of examples where folks in the CENTCOM J3 were prevented from including specific BDA reports, or even having access to those reports, because they did not align with the narrative of the effectiveness of the current strategy. And it only takes your job, or at least any chance of being promoted, being threatened so many times before you change your behavior. It's not the movies, very few GS/military members are willing to sacrifice their career on a principle.

Additionally, you're burning sources! The number one thing that makes something TS/SCI is sources and methods...if you know that I know that bit of info, you will know how I found out. If, for example, you have agents on the ground doing real-time BDA, the last thing you want to do is let the enemy know that. But that's exactly what our political class does....they exposed perhaps the most reliable and up-to-date source possible because they felt obligated to answer to the accusations that the strike was ineffective. Even if those specific agents are back in a safe area, you never want to confirm to the enemy that you had the ability to put them there in the first place because they'll do their best to ensure you never have that ability again. (Edit: I am fully aware that the admission that there are agents on the inside could purposefully be intended to cause dissent within the Iranian regime and sow distrust).

And, again, it's not just an issue with just the current administration or even with politicians. How many times did you read about us tracking bad guys with cell phones data? During one capture raid conducted by our Tier-1 SOF, the administration announced the successful capture of an HVI before the SOF team was even out of the country! The transcript of Gen Flynn's phone call being published confirmed to the Russians that line was a source of intel that was being monitored. Even the then-USAF COMACC got into the business when he bragged that our Intel Analysts were able to use photos published on social media pages to geo-locate potential targets. So much for them posting photos in the proximity of their facilities, etc.

There's no way the individual reporters, especially experienced ones like Jennifer Griffin whose reporting I usually appreciate, don't know that they are damaging the apparatus when they attempt to back the officials into a corner and make them "prove" that the information that was leaked to them is wrong because they know there's no way that's possible without exposing sources. Maybe in the old days, the officials would meet "off the record" with the reporters and say "look, here's what additional info we have, what you were leaked was BS" and the reporters would accept that and find a way to report such findings without exposing TS/SCI info. But, now, it's all about gotcha journalism and too many low level individuals looking for some attention; the journalists prey on gullible or egotistical individuals who will leak the info and the journalists act as a**es to the officials as they wave that leaked info in their face to trick them into divulging sensitive information because that's what they know will get clicks.

We need to get back to the days when officials were confident enough to say "I can neither confirm nor deny...."

FWIW, there's an entire industry built around mining classified intel, not just journalists. When I was a commander still on active-duty, the organizers of a defense-industry conference reached out to me to be a keynote speaker. I had to convince my local JAG (SJA) to write a letter advising the organizers that my line of work was too sensitive for such an audience because his first answer was it was ok for me to talk about our activities! And I had to cancel the scheduled appearance of one of my Intel officers who was later separated from the USAF after losing his security clearance for issues with protecting classified intel and accessing areas/systems he was not authorized to!!!

I don't. Did they try to overthrow the government? Did the leak intentionally damage the the government?

No, and no. It simply leaked an assessment contrary to what was being said in public.

Was it wrong? Sure. Jail time deserved? Absolutely. Treasonous? I don't think so, but I'm sure there are those more knowledgeable of the definition than I am. That's a pretty low bar.