Lessons learned from the testimony of intelligence professionals during the conflict with Iran

For the first time since the start of the Iran conflict three weeks ago, senior Trump administration officials gave public testimony on Wednesday.

During their testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, officials such as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and FBI Director Kash Patel were questioned about the administration's frequently contradictory and confusing claims regarding the Iran war and the underlying intelligence.

The testimony was given one day after Joe Kent, the head of the National The fight against terrorism Center, resigned as the most prominent White House member due to the conflict. Kent did this while implying that the government had misrepresented Iran's immediate threat. Tulsi Gabbard

Trump's most significant allegations regarding the battle were denied or not confirmed by Intelligence authorities.

What these officials would say about the Trump administration's numerous questionable claims regarding the Iran war was the most important question heading into the session. After all, these officials witnessed the intelligence, and they were testifying under the threat of perjury.

On Wednesday, they frequently failed to support or refuted the assertions made by Trump and the government.

Regarding Iran's nuclear program, Trump said in his State of the Union speech last month that they were "starting it all over" and that Iran had "attempted to rebuild their nuclear program" following his June strikes on that program.

Steve Witk off, a White House adviser, went so far as to declare that Iran was "probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material." Additionally, the White House has stated that Iran poses a "imminent nuclear threat."

However, Gabbard presented a completely different story in her planned opening remarks. Tulsi Gabbard

"Operation Midnight Hammer (in June) destroyed Iran's nuclear enrichment program," she stated. "Since then, no attempts have been made to rebuild their enrichment capability."

Notably, Gabbard skipped over this part of her introduction. She said that her "time was running long" when asked why.

"Yes," she responded when Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia asked if that was still the intelligence community's conclusion.

Trump asserted that Iran was developing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that would "soon reach the United States of America" in his State of the Union speech.

However, US intelligence has not stated that. Additionally, Gabbard reaffirmed a prior assessment in her prepared statement that Iran "could use" current technology "to begin to develop a militarily viable ICBM before 2035 should Tehran attempt to pursue that capability." According to Gabbard, the evaluation will be revised in view of the ongoing conflict.

Ratcliffe refused to provide a timeframe when Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton of Arkansas highlighted estimates from other analysts that Iran might have had an ICBM "to threaten the United States in as few as six months."

Instead, Ratcliffe stated that Cotton had good reason to be worried and that "if left unimpeded... they would have the ability to range missiles to the continental US."

Finally, Gabbard refused to support Trump's assertion last week that no experts had predicted Iran would strike its Gulf neighbors in retaliation for an attack. Iran has really discussed that prospect in public, and it was no secret.

Gabbard refrained from immediately responding to Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon's query regarding Trump's assertion.

Gabbard failed to comment on whether she briefed Trump on the prospect, claiming "internal conversations," when asked by Democratic Vice Chairman Mark Warner of Virginia. She also claimed not to be "aware of those remarks."

  The conflicting messages on Iran's "imminent" threat

 Whether Iran posed a "imminent" threat that justified going to war is perhaps the more subjective primary question.

The Trump administration has provided a number of explanations for why that occurred, many of which have not held up to examination.

Iran's regime is "intact" but "degraded," according to the head of US intelligence.

 The Iranian regime is "intact" but "largely degraded," according to the US intelligence chief on Wednesday.

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, and other senior Trump administration officials spent more than two hours testifying on global dangers to the United States during a congressional hearing.

It was the first intelligence briefing to be made public since the conflict started in late February, and it took place the day after a senior counterterrorism official resigned, stating that Iran did not constitute an immediate threat to the United States.
The US had foreseen problems in the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial maritime passage, according to Gabbard, who oversees the nation's intelligence activities.

"The IC [intelligence community] assesses the regime in Iran appears to be intact, but largely degraded due to attacks on its leadership and military capabilities," she stated.

When Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, repeatedly questioned Gabbard about whether she had considered Iran to be an immediate threat, she refused to respond. Gabbard appeared alongside the directors of the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency.The president is the only one who can decide what constitutes an immediate threat, she stated.

Lawmakers and pundits from both parties have questioned why the US attacked the Islamic Republic and whether the Trump administration was aware of possible issues in the Strait of Hormuz on Iran's southern coast ever since the conflict started. According to President Donald Trump, Iran's nuclear weapons development posed a threat to both the US and Israel, which is why the US launched its attack.

In a resignation letter that was made public on Tuesday, Joe Kent resigned from his position as director of the national counterterrorism center, criticizing Trump for the war and stating that Iran had presented "no imminent threat" to the United States.
In his testimony on Wednesday, CIA Director John Ratcliffe stated that he disagreed with Kent.
"I think Iran has been a constant threat to the United States for an extended period of time, and posed an immediate threat at this time," he stated.

Gabbard claimed that Iran's military capabilities had been "largely destroyed" by US and Israeli assaults in the Middle East.
She said that "Iran was trying to recover from the severe damage to its nuclear infrastructure sustained during the 12-Day War and continued to refuse to comply with its nuclear obligations" according to the intelligence community's assessment.

In June 2025, the US and Israel launched a 12-day attack on Iran with the goal of eliminating any potential nuclear bomb production capability.
Gabbard claimed that those attacks "obliterated" Iran's nuclear enrichment program and that Iran had made "no efforts" to reconstruct it in written remarks prepared for the committee. However, she didn't read that claim out loud.

Gabbard claimed she had to cut her public statements because they were "running long" when Democratic Senator Mark Warner questioned her about the omission.Warner retorted, citing Trump's claim that military action against Iran was warranted due to its development of nuclear weapons. "So you chose to omit the parts that contradict the president," Warner said.

The role of intelligence personnel in Trump's decision to attack Iran was another question posed by lawmakers. An Independent senator from Maine named Angus King questioned whether they were "in the room" with Trump when he made his "final decision."
Ratcliffe did not know if there was a "single time where a decision was made," but he estimated that he had "dozens and dozens" of encounters with the president.

King also questioned whether Trump had been told by intelligence services that Iran may assault the Strait of Hormuz in the event of a battle with the United States. Since the start of the US-Israeli war, Iran has essentially closed off the crucial oil shipping route.

According to Ratcliffe, "the president gets briefings about intelligence constantly." He continued by saying that the Pentagon "took measures for force protection" and prepared for Iran to attack "US interests in energy sites across the region".
Iran "would likely hold the Strait of Hormuz," according to a "longstanding assessment" by the intelligence community, according to Gabbard. According to her, the US defense department implemented "pre-emptive planning measures" in response to that report.

"Could Oil Hit $200? Analysts Sound Alarm as Geopolitical Tensions Rise"

• "$200 Oil on the Horizon? Experts Weigh In on Market Volatility"

• "The $200 Barrel Threat: What's Driving Oil's Wild Ride?"

• Could the price of oil reach $200 per barrel? Analysts no longer consider it implausible.

Market observers predict that if the Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed, prices will likely increase significantly.

Analysts cautioned that conflict might push oil prices above $100 per barrel shortly after the US and Israel launched their initial attack on Iran on February 28.

Less than three weeks into the battle, market observers are now seriously speculating that prices could rise beyond $150 or even $200.

The worldwide standard, Brent crude, reached around $120 on March 9 and hasn't been below $100 since March 13. Crude prices increased to more than $108 a barrel on Wednesday after an Israeli strike on Iran's South Pars gas field on March 18 sparked Iranian attacks on gas and oil facilities in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

The worldwide standard, Brent crude, reached around $120 on March 9 and hasn't been below $100 since March 13. Crude prices increased to almost $108 per barrel on Wednesday after an Israeli strike on Iran's South Pars gas field on March 18 sparked Iranian attacks on oil and gas installations in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Most analysts concur that if the Strait of Hormuz, which serves as a route for around one-fifth of the world's oil supplies during peacetime, stays essentially, closed in the upcoming weeks, prices might rise significantly.

The amount is the only significant topic of debate.

"Even if not for Brent and West Texas Intermediate, $200 is already within sight because benchmark Middle Eastern crudes like Oman and Dubai have already surpassed the $150 threshold."

 Al Jazeera was informed by Vandana Hari, the founder of oil market monitoring firm Vanda Insights.

"The length of time the Strait of Hormuz is closed determines how much more crude climbs from here," Hari stated.

Traffic almost stopped after Iran proclaimed the strait blocked early in the conflict and vowed to attack any ships trying to pass.

While nations are frantically negotiating agreements with Iran for safe passage, US President Donald Trump has failed to get international support for a naval convoy to reopen the strait. In recent days, very few ships have been permitted to pass, primarily those flying the flags of China, Pakistan, India, and Turkey.

As the battle on Iran rages, Trump acknowledges that his meeting with China's Xi Jinping has been postponed.
 

 Due to the Iran War, US President Donald Trump postpones his visit to Beijing and asks China for assistance in reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

As the US-Israeli war on Iran continues to take up the majority of Washington's attention, US President Donald Trump has stated that he is postponing plans to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the end of the month.

Trump informed reporters at the White House on Tuesday, "We are resetting the meeting." "We are collaborating with China. They didn't mind.

As the war against Iran enters its third week and the Strait of Hormuz is still closed to practically all international shipping, Trump has stated that he wants to stay in Washington.

"I want to be here because of the war." "I must be here," Trump declared.

From March 31 to April 2, Trump was supposed to travel to Beijing. According to the president, he now intends to travel in "about five weeks," or at the end of April. During his first term, in 2017, he made his final official visit to China.

The US and China "remain in communication" regarding Trump's visitation plans, according to a statement released by China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday.

It was anticipated that Trump and Xi will talk about a variety of topics, including the US relationship with Taiwan, Chinese fentanyl shipments, trade tariffs, and Chinese export restrictions on rare earth minerals and magnets.

Following a meeting in South Korea, Xi and Trump negotiated a truce in October that put the US-China trade war on hold. Since then, both sides have been working on a more comprehensive trade accord to settle their disagreement.

Trump's attitude toward China and Xi has softened since his meeting with the Chinese leader in South Korea, despite the fact that both countries were in his sights at the beginning of his second term last year.

Iran Israel War || World War III ? || Israel Iran Attack 

The Middle East is engulfed in flames as Iran war prolongs, threatening severe regional consequences.

• "World War III: The Lifting of the Veil"
• "The Third World War: A Global Catastrophe Unfolding"
• "World War III: The Battle for Global Domination"
• "The War to End All Wars: World War III and Its Consequences"
• "World War III: The Final Countdown"
• "The Global Conflict: Understanding World War III"
• "World War III: The War for Humanity's Future"
• "The Third World War: A New Era of Global Conflict"
• "World War III: The Clash of Civilizations"
• "The War of the Century: World War III and the Fate of Humanity"
• "World War III: The Battle for Global Survival"
• "The Global War: World War III and the Future of Humanity"
• "World War III: The War for Global Order"
• "The Third World War: A War for the Ages"
• "World War III: The Battle for the Middle East"
• "The War of the Titans: World War III and the Rise of New Powers"
• "World War III: The Global Economic Consequences"
• "The Global Conflict: World War III and the Role of Technology"
• "World War III: The Battle for Energy Supremacy"
• "The Third World War: A War for Global Resources"
• "World War III: The Impact on Global Politics"
• "The War for the Future: World War III and the Rise of Asia"
• "World War III: The Battle for the Soul of Humanity"
• "The Global War on Terror: World War III and the Fight against Extremism"
• "World War III: The War for Global Security"
• "The Third World War: A War for the Environment"
• "World War III: The Battle for the Global Economy"
• "The War of the Nations: World War III and the Rise of Nationalism"
• "World War III: The Clash of Ideologies"
• "The Global Conflict: World War III and the Future of Democracy"
• "World War III: The Battle for Human Rights"
• "The War for Global Justice: World War III and the Fight for Equality"
• "World War III: The Impact on Global Health"
• "The Third World War: A War for Global Education"
• "World War III: The Battle for the Future of Work"
• "The Global War on Poverty: World War III and the Fight for Economic Equality"
• "World War III: The War for Global Leadership"
• "The War of the Superpowers: World War III and the Rise of China"
• "World War III: The Battle for the Arctic"
• "The Global Conflict: World War III and the Future of Space Exploration"
• "World War III: The War for Cyber security"
• "The Third World War: A War for Global Governance"
• "World War III: The Battle for the Oceans"
• "The War for Global Resources: World War III and the Fight for Water"
• "World War III: The Impact on Global Food Security"
• "The Global War on Climate Change: World War III and the Fight for Sustainability"
• "World War III: The Battle for the Amazon"
• "The War for Global Health: World War III and the Fight Against Pandemics"
• "World War III: The Impact on Global Education"
• "The Global Conflict: World War III and the Future of Humanity"

The Middle East is once again ablaze, with the entire region caught in the crossfire. It's uncertain how long this war will continue, whether the aggressors will achieve their goals, or if Iran will succeed in its defense. However, it's clear that if the fighting escalates, the entire region will face devastating consequences.

On February 28, the US and Israel launched a joint attack on Iran, dubbed "Operation Epic Fury." Iran retaliated with strikes on Israel and several Arab countries. The most tragic aspect of this war was the killing of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, in the initial attack. He was a key figure in the Iranian Revolution and had led the country for 37 years.

The US and Israel claim to have targeted 48 key Iranian figures, including Khamenei, in the first five days of the war. Following Khamenei's death, Iran declared an "all-out war" on the Middle East, intensifying the conflict. Iran launched intense air attacks on Israel and US interests in the region, reportedly causing significant casualties.

The war has also seen Iran target several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman, with drones and missiles. Turkey and Azerbaijan have also been affected. Iran has denied responsibility for some attacks, and civilian casualties have been reported, drawing condemnation from Arab countries.

The war has severely impacted global energy supplies, with prices rising due to disruptions in oil and LNG shipments. Pakistan, heavily reliant on Arab countries for energy, is particularly vulnerable. The country's economy, already struggling, faces further strain, and its 60 lakh citizens working in Arab countries are at risk.

The Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway, has been closed by Iran, halting shipping traffic. The region's economic hub, Dubai, has been severely impacted, with businesses suffering losses.

The international community is divided, with the UK and Europe not intervening as they did in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. Russia is preoccupied with Ukraine, and China has called for talks. Pakistan and other Muslim countries face a diplomatic crisis, caught between Iran and Arab countries.

The war's economic consequences are dire, with rising inflation and shortages of essential goods. Pakistan's remittances from Arab countries, a vital lifeline, are at risk. The country's economy, already struggling, may face further strain.

Talks between the US and Iran have stalled, with the US and Israel launching attacks on Iran. Iran claims it was deceived, while the US accuses Iran of not being serious about negotiations. The conflict revolves around Iran's nuclear program, with the US and Israel determined to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

The war's duration is uncertain, but its impact is already being felt globally. Diplomacy and dialogue are essential to prevent further escalation and stabilize the region.