Good morning,

This is the Monday morning edition of The Intel Brief. Let’s review some critical updates from the weekend.

Reporting Period: 26-30 June 2025

Bottom-Line Up Front:

Conflicting Reports On The Status of Iran’s Nuclear Program Continue

Summary
On 26 June, the White House released a statement detailing varied claims on the status of Iran’s nuclear program. Despite leaks to the media and the White House limiting its briefings to Congress, the U.S. government’s official position is that the program has been “obliterated.” Iran’s Supreme Leader states the strikes did not cause major damage and that future strikes could occur. Israel, while honoring the established ceasefire, maintains that any attempts by Iran to rebuild the program or restock its missile arsenal will be met with further strikes.

Findings

• White House Statement: Various senior government and military officials state that Iran’s nuclear program is destroyed. CIA Director Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Gabbard both stated that “credible” and “new” intelligence confirms the facilities are destroyed. Director Grossi of the IAEA stated that the complex devices and centrifuges could not have survived the strikes.
  On 27 June, Trump stated Iran must open itself to international inspection to verify it does not attempt to rebuild its nuclear program. Trump is also reportedly floating the idea of supporting a civilian nuclear program for Tehran.

• Intelligence Leaks: On 26 June, the White House announced that it plans to limit intelligence sharing with Congress via CAPNET due to early Battle Damage Assessments (BDA) being leaked to the public. Example:

• Iran’s Statements: On 26 June, in his first public appearance in a week, Supreme Leader Khamenei stated that “They [the U.S.] attacked our nuclear facilities, but they were unable to do anything important.” Khamenei states that American and Israeli BDAs are exaggerated. He declared victory during the 12-Day War, stating Iranian strikes on U.S. bases in Qatar were significant. He warned that a similar crisis — but with a harsher Iranian response — is possible in the future.

• Israel’s Statements: IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Zamir stated that Iran’s nuclear program was “significantly damaged” and set back by “years.” Israel Defense Minister Katz stated that the IDF will conduct strikes in the future if Iran attempts to rebuild its nuclear program, its air power, and “threatening long-range missiles.” Katz called this a new “policy of enforcement.”

Why This Matters
Conflicting accounts on the status of Iran’s nuclear program suggest the onset of a dangerous new phase in the U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict.

• Ambiguity and Risk: The U.S. and Israel claim success in destroying Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but Iran’s denial raises uncertainty over future military thresholds. This ambiguity increases the chance of miscalculation or preemptive action as all sides attempt to shape global perception and domestic morale.

• Deterrence Narratives: Israel’s “policy of enforcement” is a shift from reactive to proactive military posturing. The threat of renewed strikes if Iran rebuilds its capabilities could escalate the cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation, destabilizing the region and complicating diplomacy.

• Intelligence Issues: The White House’s decision to curtail briefings to Congress due to leaks shows politicization of the intelligence community. This could have lasting implications for oversight, inter-branch trust, and public confidence in strategic decision-making.

• Post-Strike Uncertainty: While U.S. and IAEA officials suggest that Iran’s program was effectively neutralized, this crisis is not resolved. A lack of diplomatic overtures suggests there may not be a long-term solution, meaning Iran may pursue the rebuilding of its nuclear program, pushing this issue into the future.

Sources: White House, The New York Times, Axios, Marine Corps Times, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC

Russia Balancing War Strategy Amid Domestic Constraints

Summary
During this period, reports from the Kremlin reveal the growing strain of Russia’s prolonged war in Ukraine. President Putin has stated that military spending will decrease in 2026 as Moscow continues offensive operations, avoids a recession, and claims openness to peace talks. At the same time, the Kremlin acknowledges that nearly 140,000 Russian soldiers require reintegration support after returning from the front.

Findings

• Peace Talks: On 26 June, the Kremlin stated there is no scheduled date for the next round of Ukraine peace talks, despite earlier interest in a second summit following the June 2025 Ukraine-led peace forum in Switzerland. Russia has not publicly abandoned diplomatic options but remains committed to what it terms “demilitarizing” Ukraine.

• Formal Declaration of War: The Kyiv Independent reports growing concern among Western and Ukrainian analysts that Russia may issue a formal declaration of war, shifting away from its current designation of the invasion as a "special military operation."
  This would allow Putin to launch full mobilization in Russia.

• Russia’s Defense Budget: On 27 June, Putin announced that Russia would reduce defense spending in 2026, citing the need to shift resources toward economic development and domestic recovery.

  Russian defense spending hit record levels in 2024 and 2025, reaching over 6% of GDP, but has strained federal reserves amid stagnant economic growth and continued sanctions.
  A week prior, Russia’s Economic Minister stated the country is on the verge of recession.

• Civil Reintegration: On 26 June, the Kremlin stated that roughly 140,000 Russian soldiers need reintegration services, ranging from medical care to employment and housing. This admission highlights the growing domestic toll of the war effort and the risk of long-term social instability if demobilized troops are not adequately supported.
  Economic issues, poor wartime drawdown policies, and having to rebuild the military suggest Russia could enter a period of increased civil unrest.

Why This Matters
Russia’s effort to manage both its external war aims and internal stability reveals a widening contradiction between strategy and capacity.

A lower defense budget for 2026 suggests Putin is shifting his strategy for endurance. More resources will be redirected to support the civilian economy, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the war will end. Putin could be investing in capabilities that allow Russia to maintain its battlefield positions while pressuring the Kyiv government into an unfavorable deal (i.e. increased drone and missile arsenals for strikes on key military and civil infrastructure).

To me, this also indicates that Russia needs to recover its economy so that when the war does end, it can support the rebuilding of its military and (in Moscow’s assumptions) carry out nation-building in seized parts of Ukraine.

The diplomatic situation is interesting, as all developments suggest that Putin and his officials will continue using diplomacy for narrative purposes and to distract Ukraine and its supporters. It seems like a deal is far off, especially due to Russia’s unreasonable conditions and the U.S.’s recent distractions in the Middle East and the persistent threat in the Pacific.

Sources: Reuters, BBC, The Moscow Times, The Kyiv Independent, Reuters

U.S. Has A Proposed Defense Budget For FY26

Summary
On 26 June, the Department of Defense unveiled the defense budget request for FY26. Discretionary base funding totals $843.3 billion and $113.3 billion from a Congressional reconciliation bill. The budget request emphasizes competition with China, expanding air and missile defense, growing the Navy, advancing Air Force capabilities, and rebuilding the defense industrial base.

Findings

• Vote: On 29 June, the Senate voted 51 to 49 to proceed with the reconciliation bill.

• Budget Total: The current base budget proposal is $848.3 billion. A $113.3 billion Congressional reconciliation boost of mandatory spending (for shipbuilding, missile defense, munitions stockpiling, etc.), and a Department of Energy defense-related budget means the total budget for FY26 could exceed $1 trillion.

• Funding by Service: The budget has identified annual budgets for military services:

  • U.S. Army: $197.4 billion in base funding.

  • U.S. Navy: $292.2 billion base funding; includes funding for 19 new ships and maintaining a 287-ship battle force.

  • U.S. Air and Space Force: $301.1 billion base funding, with Space Force boosted to ~$40 billion total under reconciliation. The Air Force budget highly emphasized the procurement of advanced aircraft and missiles, including the F-47 sixth-generation fighter.

    $15.1 billion will be allocated for cybersecurity operations.

• Air Defense and Nuclear Triad: $25 billion will be allocated for initial deployment of Golden Dome systems; $60 billion for nuclear triad modernization includes procurement of B‑21s, Columbia-class submarines, Sentinel ICBMs & sea‑launched cruise missiles.

Why This Matters
The FY26 defense budget reflects a high-stakes balancing act between military modernization, industrial base sustainment, and fiscal realism. The Pentagon’s reliance on a one-time reconciliation bill to push total spending near $1 trillion underscores the difficulty of funding strategic priorities—like countering China, modernizing the nuclear triad, and rearming for high-end conflict. It also reflects Congress’s inability to do its job in a timely manner and establish nonpartisan defense budgets at relevant times.

The Senate will look to modify the bill, which could prompt its return to the House for review and voting. If a vote is approved, it could become law in early July.

Sources: Department of Defense, Defense One, Stars and Stripes, Department of Defense, Federal News Network

End Brief

That concludes this brief. Thank you for reading!

Nick