CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins repeatedly asked Senator Markwayne Mullin the same question during his appearance on The Source, and his answers became harder to follow each time. The core question was simple: why is the administration now worried about Iran’s nuclear program if President Trump declared it “obliterated” just months ago? According to Mediaite, Mullin appeared on the show to discuss the recent buildup of U.S. military forces around Iran. He claimed that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his government were “obviously trying to rebuild” their nuclear capabilities, saying the U.S. ended a 12-day conflict because Iran said it was done trying to build a nuclear weapon, but now they are clearly trying to rebuild it. Collins pushed back, asking why rebuilding was even possible if the program had been destroyed. Mullin responded, “Because they’re rebuilding it, and you can see them rebuilding it.” He then used an analogy, saying people can “obliterate their bones and their legs” in a car accident but still have metal put in and walk again. The administration’s shifting story on Iran’s nuclear program points to a clear contradiction When Collins highlighted the short gap between “obliterated” in June and “a week away” from bomb-making material in February, Mullin admitted he couldn’t speak to Special Envoy Steve Witkoff’s specific reports. Collins continued pressing, saying people understand the risks of a nuclear-armed Iran but struggle to reconcile being told the program was “obliterated” with now hearing a strike might be needed. Mullin said “obliterating is much different than they’re rebuilding it,” and tried to shift focus by asking why China and Russia were silent. If we obliterated Iran's nuclear program last summer, then why are you worried about it right now?Sen. Markywane Mullin: "Because they're rebuilding it and you can see they're rebuilding it."But it was obliterated?Mullin: "That doesn't mean you can't rebuild. I mean, people… pic.twitter.com/KqWzYKLd8z— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) February 26, 2026 Collins simply repeated: “But how can you rebuild it if it was obliterated?” Mullin compared it to rebuilding a house after a tornado, saying if the “foundation is there,” rebuilding is possible even if “the top of it is removed.” President Trump announced airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear program on June 21, 2025, declaring that key nuclear enrichment facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth went further, saying Iran’s nuclear ambitions had been “obliterated.” Trump also said on social media it was his “great honor to Destroy All Nuclear facilities & capability, and then, STOP THE WAR!” However, U.S. intelligence assessments at the time suggested the strikes did not destroy the core parts of Iran’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by a few months. Despite this, Trump continued for months to insist the program was destroyed, using phrases like “knocked out their entire potential nuclear capacity,” “obliterated their nuclear hopes,” and even claiming Iran had no nuclear program at all. This growing gap between Trump’s claims about destroying Iran’s nuclear program and what intelligence actually found has raised serious questions. Now, the administration’s position has shifted. Vice President JD Vance stated, “Our primary interest here is, we don’t want Iran to get a nuclear weapon.” Trump recently said, “They can’t have nuclear weapons; it’s very simple.” Witkoff went further, claiming Iran was “probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.” This raises an obvious question: how can Iran be a week away from bomb-making material if its program was destroyed just eight months ago? With global nuclear tensions already running high, experts tracking how close the world is to nuclear catastrophe say the situation is more dangerous than ever. The stated reasons for possible military action have also shifted. Last month, the administration cited Tehran killing protesters, but now the focus is on nuclear concerns. When Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked why the U.S. might need to strike Iran again, she said, “there’s many reasons and arguments that one could make for a strike against Iran.”