The media are trying to collect themselves in the immediate aftermath of Operation Midnight Hammer- the U.S. mission to destroy critical Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow. As we see on CBS’s Face the Nation, some have decided to do the same old thing as always and get wrecked for their efforts.

Watch as Margaret Brennan attempts to trap Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the contents of the March intelligence assessment, with predictable results:

Margaret Brennan tries to intelligencesplain the March assessment to SecSTATE Rubio, and got WRECKED: pic.twitter.com/rr9DFyYlLA

— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 22, 2025

CBS FACE THE NATION

6/22/25

10:35 AM

MARCO RUBIO: So this mission was a very precise mission. It had three objectives: three nuclear sites. It was not an attack on Iran, it was not an attack on the Iranian people, this wasn’t a regime change move. This was designed to degrade and/or to destroy three nuclear sites related to their nuclear weaponization ambitions, and that was delivered on yesterday. What happens next will now depend on what Iran chooses to do next. If they choose the path of diplomacy, we're ready. We can do a deal that’s good for them, the Iranian people, and good for the world. If they choose another route, then there will be consequences for that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me follow up on a phrase you just…”weaponization ambitions. Are you saying there that the United States did not see intelligence that the Supreme Leader had ordered weaponization?

RUBIO: That's irrelevant. I think that’s the question being asked in the media all the time, that's an irrelevant question. They have everything they need to build a weapon. 

BRENNAN: No. That is the key point in the U.S. intelligence assessment. You know that.

RUBIO: No, it's not.

BRENNAN: Yes, it was.

RUBIO: No, it’s not.

BRENNAN: That the political decision had not been made.

RUBIO: No, I mean- well, I know that better than you know that and I know that that’s not the case. You don’t know anything- you don’t know what you’re talking about.

BRENNAN: But I’m asking you whether the order was given.

RUBIO: And the people who say that- It doesn't matter if the order was given. 

BRENNAN: (SIGH)

RUBIO: They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons. Why would you bury- why would you bury things in a mountain 300 feet under the ground? Why would you bury 6- why do they have 60% enriched uranium? You don’t need 60% enriched uranium. The only countries in the world that have uranium at 60% are countries that have nuclear weapons. Because they can quickly make it 90. They have all the elements. They have all the- why do they- why do they have a space program? Is Iran going to go to the moon? No. They’re trying to build an ICBM so they can one day put a warhead on it… 

BRENNAN: No, but that's a question- that's a question- that’s a question of intent. And you know in the intelligence assessment, it was that Iran wanted to be at threshold so they could use this leverage-

RUBIO: How do you know what the intelligence assessment says? How do you know what the intelligence assessment says?

BRENNAN: I'm talking about the public March assessment. And that's why I was asking you, if you know something more from March if an order was given--

RUBIO: Well, but that's also an inaccurate representation of it- that's an inaccurate representation of it. That's not how intelligence is read. That's now how intelligence is used. Here's what the whole world knows. Forget about intelligence. What the IAEA knows they are enriching uranium well beyond anything you need for a- for a- for a civil nuclear program. So why would you enrich uranium at 60%, if you don't intend to one day use it to take it to 90 and build a weapon? Why are you- why are you developing ICBMs? Why do you have 8000 short range missiles and two to 3000 long- mid range missiles that you continue to develop? Why do you do all these things--

BRENNAN: Understood.

RUBIO: They have everything they need for a nuclear weapon. They have the delivery mechanisms, they have the enrichment capability, they have the highly enriched uranium that is stored.

BRENNAN: Yeah.

RUBIO: That's all we need to see.

BRENNAN: Right. Well, and that's--

RUBIO: Especially in the hands of the regime that's already involved in terrorism and proxies and all kinds of things are on- they are the source of all the instability in the Middle East--

BRENNAN: And no one's disputing- no one's disputing that. I'm not doing that here. And they were censured at the IAEA for that enrichment and for violating their non-proliferation agreements. I was simply asking if we had intelligence that there was an order to weaponize because you said 'weaponization ambitions,' which implies they weren't doing it--

RUBIO: Well, we have intelligence that they have everything they need to build a nuclear weapon, and that's more than enough.

If you listen closely enough at the 1:05 mark, you’ll hear Brennan sighing audibly when Rubio tells her that it doesn't matter whether the mullahs gave a specific order to weaponize their nuclear program because of the other things they’d already done. To wit: achieve 60% enrichment, the embedding of nuclear facilities under a mountain, and the pursuit of ballistic missiles under the guise of a space program. Having learned nothing from the Vance debacle and subsequent “faces of Brennan” memes, Brennan still chooses to sneer at Republican interview subjects who swat away her attempts at imposing a narrative line. Although somewhat more muted as of late, the contempt will eventually bubble to the surface.

This first volley set the tone for the rest of the interview, and followed familiar lines: questions of whether the strike was the launch of a protracted regime change forever war, attempts to sow discord among the president’s national security team, and handwringing over the fact that the strike was done with executive authority and kept very tightly. Of course, all of these are the exact opposite of the approach the media took during such instances as the killing of an American citizen via drone strike and the NATO regime change mission in Lybia, just to name a few. Of course, things were (D)ifferent back then.

It has often been said that the American military relitigates the last war. The same can be said about the legacy media. Faced with what appears to be a successful strike against the sought-for capabilities of an enemy that wishes “Death to America” and who is responsible for the deaths of scores of Americans, the media choose instead to relitigate the 2003 invasion of Iraq.