National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe

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.