Dismissing Our Intelligence Collection and Analysis Capabilities Emboldens Our Adversaries
The Steady State | Martha Duncan
Only those trained to assess and report capabilities are the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
During my 36-year career with the Department of Defense, I had the honor of serving under ten Directors of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). As a Combat Support Agency, the DIA has long stood at the forefront of providing specialized, critical support to U.S. military forces, particularly during combat operations. Its contributions span intelligence, logistics, communications, and medical support, collectively enhancing our military’s readiness and operational effectiveness.
One critical yet often overlooked intelligence resource under the DIA is the Underground Facility Analysis Center (UFAC). Recently, DIA has been in the news regarding the “leaked” battle damage assessment (BDA) of Iranian nuclear facilities. While it is too soon for definitive conclusions—these assessments require time and rigor—an informed, expert analysis is always preferable to broad, unsupported declarations, such as the president’s recent assertion of “total obliteration.” As a career intelligence officer, I can state unequivocally, alongside colleagues across the Intelligence Community (IC), that accurate, predictive analysis is born from the collective assessment of experienced experts. To discount or disqualify professional analysis on the Iranian nuclear strikes sets a dangerous precedent—one that both the president and Congress must approach with extreme caution.
Established in 1997 as a subordinate center to DIA, UFAC was created to address the lack of a dedicated U.S. organization capable of responding comprehensively to critical questions posed by decision-makers, military commanders, and weapons acquisition leaders. ¹ Initially supported by the CIA, NSA, U.S. Strategic Command’s Joint Intelligence Operations Center, the Air Force Technical Applications Center, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and the U.S. Geological Survey, UFAC now functions as a consortium dedicated to detecting, identifying, characterizing, and assessing adversarial underground facilities and Hardened and Deeply Buried Targets. ²
The expertise assembled for UFAC includes the top all-source analysts, engineers, geologists, modelers, imagery and geospatial analysts, R&D scientists, collection strategists, and managers. ³ Simply put, it takes a village to obtain a full and accurate picture.
Historical records, some dating back to World War II, reveal the extensive efforts the U.S. has undertaken to identify and assess underground structures worldwide. Today, there are over 10,000 such facilities globally, many in hostile territories, designed to hide or protect lethal military equipment and activities—including weapons of mass destruction—that threaten U.S. and allied interests. ⁴
Intelligence disciplines—Human Intelligence, Signals Intelligence, Measurement and Signature Intelligence, and Open-Source Intelligence, among others—collectively form the "multi-INT" approach, which provides a comprehensive and precise operational picture. Completing and verifying these assessments is an intricate and time-intensive process, contrary to the administration’s apparent desire for rapid, simplified conclusions. Such impatience is both irresponsible and an affront to the intelligence centers that have safeguarded national security for over 80 years.
Among numerous studies, the Department of Defense JASON advisory group has examined various technical approaches for characterizing underground facilities, including seismic sensing, change detection, electromagnetic techniques, magnetic detection, and power line analysis. These advanced methods form the backbone of accurate underground threat assessments.
Similarly, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency plays a critical role, especially through its provision of High-Resolution Terrain Information, vital for effective geospatial intelligence analysis. ⁶
In 2012, while I was still at DIA, then-Director LTG Ron Burgess testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iran had installed nearly 9,000 centrifuges at Natanz and accumulated sufficient 3.5% enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. He highlighted that buried, hardened facilities and advanced air defenses were central to Iran’s efforts to shield its nuclear infrastructure from destruction. ⁷ Such detailed assessments are critical tools that inform presidential and congressional decision-making.
The strength of our national defense lies in the continued integration of multi-INT to locate and assess underground threats accurately. We do not need a symbolic "Golden Dome"; we have robust, sophisticated defense mechanisms in place—if they are allowed to operate unimpeded. Now more than ever, “the convergence of intelligence disciplines has become an operational imperative in order to provide decision-makers with more specific, timely, and focused analysis of where the threat originates, in order to thwart it prior to attacks on U.S. soil and interests.” ⁸
Congress bears the constitutional duty to safeguard our nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to ensure our intelligence capabilities remain intact and respected.
As national security professionals, we have an obligation to correct mischaracterizations of our capabilities. In an era marked by increasing cyber dependency, globalized commerce, and rapidly evolving regional conflicts, robust and credible Department of Defense counterintelligence activities are critical. They ensure the integrity of technical collection and assessment efforts and protect against threats from both adversaries and insiders who may seek to distort or undermine factual intelligence.
Martha Duncan is a retired DOD senior executive, with 36 years serving including 23 in the U.S. Army Reserves, as Reserve attaché, analyst, operations officer, and 3 deployments to areas of conflict.
Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 290 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.