An investigative report published by the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth has exposed what it describes as a systematic disinformation campaign led by Israel’s political leadership, with support and complicity from parts of the military and security establishment. The campaign allegedly sought to mislead the public about the actual results of the war on Iran and the military operations targeting Iranian nuclear and missile facilities.
The newspaper described the erosion of truth as one of the first casualties of the war, detailing how security figures and institutions were used to construct narratives of a decisive victory even as internal intelligence assessments indicated that the declared objectives had not been achieved. Those assessments reportedly concluded that the Iranian threat remained, particularly in relation to fissile material and the country’s missile arsenal.
Claims of Total Nuclear Destruction Challenged
At the centre of the scandal are claims made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump that Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan had been completely destroyed and that the strikes had eliminated the nuclear threat for generations.
However, according to the investigation, Pentagon reports, and internal US and Israeli intelligence assessments directly contradicted that narrative. While the damage was assessed as severe, the facilities had not been completely destroyed.
The report said the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office placed significant pressure on senior intelligence officers to sign documents confirming the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program. Senior intelligence officials reportedly refused outright, arguing that doing so would amount to falsifying the truth and violating professional ethics.
Following that refusal, the political leadership reportedly turned to other, more compliant channels. The Israel Atomic Energy Commission, headed by a director-general without a background in nuclear analysis, was allegedly pressured to sign a document stating that the attacks had rendered Iran’s enrichment facilities unusable and delayed its nuclear program by many years.
The document helped reinforce the political narrative, but according to the investigation, it omitted a fundamental fact highlighted by scientists: Iran’s stockpile of fissile material, reportedly sufficient to produce dozens of nuclear bombs, had not been destroyed. Instead, Iran had concealed the material inside fortified shelters.
According to the report, this meant that the actual delay to Iran’s nuclear program amounted to only a few months, rather than the “generations” publicly claimed.
Intelligence Assessments Contradicted the Case for War
The alleged manipulation extended beyond the nuclear file to the justifications presented before the war and assessments of Iran’s missile capabilities.
Israel’s political leadership justified the military operations by claiming that Iran posed an imminent nuclear and existential threat and was rapidly approaching the acquisition of a nuclear weapon. However, the investigation said US and Israeli intelligence assessments at the time found no active weapons team and no order from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to manufacture a nuclear bomb.
The report also challenged Netanyahu and Israeli military leaders’ claims that the existential threat posed by Iranian ballistic missiles had been eliminated.
According to the investigation, military data and calculations showed that the strikes destroyed only one-third of Iran’s missiles and approximately half of its launchers. Critical production infrastructure, including planetary mixers, remained intact, leaving Iran’s missile arsenal capable of continuing to pose a threat.
Military Damage Assessment Reportedly Concealed
The investigation further alleged that the Israeli military establishment expanded the information blackout by concealing the findings of a battle damage assessment conducted in late 2025.
That assessment reportedly concluded that the nuclear sites had not been completely destroyed. According to the report, the military also refused to respond to media enquiries concerning the findings.
The official narrative also allegedly exaggerated the scale of attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists. Public statements claimed that all key experts involved in the program had been eliminated, while intelligence data reportedly showed that only nine scientists were killed.
Of those nine, four were considered senior figures. The report noted that Iran’s nuclear knowledge base consists of hundreds of engineers and scientists, making claims that the country’s scientific infrastructure had been dismantled little more than a media narrative.
Intelligence Agencies Warned Against Regime Change Strategy
The contradiction between military reality and political strategy reportedly became even clearer during the second round of confrontation, which began in early 2026.
According to the investigation, Netanyahu insisted on including the overthrow of the Iranian government among the war’s primary objectives. Israel’s Military Intelligence Directorate and Mossad reportedly issued firm warnings against the plan, describing it as delusional and destined to fail.
The Israeli military, however, reportedly chose not to directly confront the political leadership over the objective because of concerns about the potential consequences.
Instead, the goal was reformulated as creating the conditions for the government’s overthrow. According to the report, that strategy ultimately failed, with Mojtaba Khamenei assuming power and leading a government described as more hardline and extreme than its predecessor.
Israeli Institutions Reject Investigation’s Findings
Following publication of the investigation, several Israeli institutions moved to contain its fallout.
Netanyahu’s office, the Israeli military spokesperson and the Israel Atomic Energy Commission all rejected the findings of the investigation.
They maintained that the military operations had been historic and had removed the nuclear and missile threats. They also described the report as a politically motivated attempt to diminish Israel’s claimed security achievements.
The Israel Atomic Energy Commission defended the accuracy of the document it had signed, while, according to the investigation, disregarding the scientific reservations raised during its preparation.
The investigation concluded with a warning about the danger of professional and military institutions being transformed into instruments of political propaganda. It argued that such a development poses an existential risk to Israel’s ability to make critical decisions based on accurate intelligence and verified facts.
