Nearly three weeks into the Iran war, Trump administration officials testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard drew attention by avoiding several questions about the reasons behind the conflict.
This hearing came after National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent resigned, citing the war as his reason. Kent claimed that Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States and that the conflict was driven by pressure from Israel.
Conflicting Claims Over Iran’s Nuclear Program
During last year’s 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel, the U.S. launched Operation Midnight Hammer, targeting three Iranian nuclear facilities.
Since then, President Trump has repeatedly claimed that Iran’s nuclear program was “obliterated,” a point echoed by administration officials even during negotiations with Tehran.
However, questions remain about the actual threat if Iran’s nuclear capabilities had truly been dismantled. In his State of the Union address, Trump said Iran was trying to rebuild its program, while White House envoy Steve Witkoff claimed Tehran was “a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.”
During Wednesday’s hearing, Gabbard contradicted these statements:
“As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer (in June), Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There have been no efforts since then to rebuild their enrichment capability.”
She added that intelligence assessments had not changed, indicating Iran had not attempted to restart its program.
Debate Over ‘Imminent Threat’
Whether Iran posed an imminent threat to the U.S. remains unresolved. Kent argued in his resignation letter that Iran posed no threat and that the war was largely driven by external pressure.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to justify its actions by citing an “imminent threat.” During her testimony, Gabbard declined to define what qualifies as such a threat, saying:
“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat. That is the President’s prerogative.”
Senator Jon Ossoff sharply responded, noting that assessing threats is a key part of the intelligence community’s role.
Contradictions Over Iran’s Capabilities
Trump also claimed in his State of the Union address that Iran was developing an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. Gabbard’s testimony contradicted this, confirming that intelligence assessments had not changed and no such missile developments had been identified.
Questions Over Iran’s Retaliation
Trump expressed surprise at Iran’s retaliation following U.S. strikes:
“They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East… We were shocked. They fought back.”
However, reports citing U.S. officials indicated that retaliation had been anticipated, including possible strikes on U.S. bases in the Gulf and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump had been fully briefed on this scenario, and the Pentagon had planned for such possibilities for decades.
Iran, for its part, had repeatedly warned that any escalation or attack would be treated as an act of war.
