U.S. Lawmakers Grill Trump’s Intel Chief on Iran Nuclear Threat

In her written testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, wrote that because of last summer’s 12 days of U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on Iran’s missile and nuclear sites, “Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. The entrances to the underground facilities that were bombed have been buried and shuttered with cement.”

However, in her spoken testimony, Gabbard deviated from her eight pages of prepared remarks—which otherwise closely matched her verbal delivery—in describing the status of Iran’s nuclear program prior to the Feb. 28 start of the latest U.S.-Israel war against Iran.

“Prior to Operation Epic Fury, the IC [U.S. intelligence community] assesses 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 with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], refusing them access to key facilities,” she said.

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, the vice chairman of the committee, asked Gabbard why she had skipped over some parts of her submitted testimony on Iran, accusing her of trying to avoid contradicting U.S. President Donald Trump in public. Gabbard responded that she omitted them to save time.

Upon further questioning by Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, Gabbard reaffirmed that it was the intelligence community’s assessment that last summer’s strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program.

Ossoff then asked why a March 1 statement from the White House justifying its attacks on Iran cited an “imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime.”

“Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?” Ossoff asked Gabbard.

Gabbard responded: “The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment capability … the only person who can determine what is and isn’t an imminent threat is the president.”

She added, “It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and isn’t an imminent threat.”

Ossoff pushed back strongly on those remarks: “It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. This is the worldwide threats hearing where … you represent the IC’s assessment of threats.”

He accused her of “evading the question, because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House.”

Gabbard testified one day after her subordinate, Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned over his disagreement with Trump’s decision to join Israel in attacking Iran. In his resignation letter, which he posted online, Kent said that he couldn’t “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” which he said “posed no imminent threat to our nation.”

“I didn’t agree with your friend Mr. Kent, but I did agree with him yesterday that there was no imminent threat,” Warner said, in a possible reference to Kent’s support of election- and Jan. 6-related conspiracy theories and invocation of antisemitic tropes.

Democrats were the most withering in their criticism of Gabbard—as well as of FBI Director Kash Patel, who testified alongside Gabbard—across a range of issues.

But Republicans also raised critiques (albeit more mild ones) of the administration officials’ implementation of cost cuts to offices focused on counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and cyber issues even as U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to start a war against Iran has raised concerns about the possibility of retaliatory attacks harming Americans at home and abroad.

“You have devoted declining budgets, personnel, and emphasis on countering terrorism, yet the fact is that ISIS is growing and operating in Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, and Iraq,” Republican Sen. Susan Collins said. “Al Qaeda is surging in Afghanistan, the Arabian Peninsula, and throughout Central Africa. The Houthis in Yemen and the rest of the Iranian proxies remain a serious threat. Focusing as you have done on great-power competitors seems to have diverted resources from the fight against terrorism, a fight that is very much still going on.”

Republican Sen. Jerry Moran said he was worried that the war on Iran was harming “the ability for Ukraine to succeed in defending its borders” by further constraining the U.S. defense industry’s ability to produce sufficient munitions for Ukraine and the NATO allies supplying Kyiv in its resistance to Russia’s invasion. He also expressed concern that the administration’s waiver of some sanctions on Russian oil to help ease the energy crisis caused by the Iran conflict is financially benefiting Moscow.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who was also testifying, responded that while some recent U.S. actions “may benefit adversaries like Russia,” they were taken because policymakers believe that they “benefit U.S. citizens, in this case with respect to keeping the economy on track and keeping oil prices low.”

Ratcliffe urged Moran to have confidence in U.S. intelligence agencies, noting how they were instrumental in the military operational success of last summer’s strikes on Iran’s missile and nuclear sites.

“I’m confident that we can walk and chew gum at the same time: pursue objectives in the Middle East and provide support with regard to the … Russian aggression in Ukraine,” the CIA chief said.