US intelligence assessment complicates Trump’s Iran war narrative

The head of US National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has said that American intelligence agencies found no evidence that Iran resumed its nuclear enrichment programme after last year’s US and Israeli strikes — a conclusion that cuts against one of the central arguments used to justify the current war.

In written testimony submitted to the Senate intelligence committee, Gabbard stated: “As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated”. She added: “There have been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.”

That portion of her assessment, however, did not make it into her oral remarks during the public hearing. When questioned about the omission, Gabbard said she ran out of time, without disputing the substance of the finding. The response drew immediate pushback from lawmakers. “You chose to omit the parts that contradict Trump,” Senator Mark Warner said.

The timing matters. President Donald Trump and his administration have repeatedly framed Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a primary driver behind abandoning diplomacy and escalating to military action. The June 2025 strikes — which ended a brief but intense conflict between Israel and Iran — were also described by Trump as having “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities, even as he continued to warn of an ongoing threat.

Tehran has long denied pursuing nuclear weapons, and external monitors have generally assessed that even if such ambitions existed, they would not translate into an immediate threat. That broader context is now resurfacing as scrutiny grows around the legal and strategic basis for the war.

Diplomatic signals before the escalation also appear more mixed than initially presented. Oman’s foreign minister, who mediated indirect talks between Washington and Tehran, has rejected claims that negotiations had stalled. Separate reporting has indicated that UK officials involved in the process did not view Iran’s position as warranting urgent military action.

The administration, for its part, has not relied on a single justification. Alongside nuclear concerns, officials have cited Iran’s missile capabilities, its regional posture, and perceived threats to US forces and Israel. Still, the question of an “imminent threat” remains central — both under international law and within US legal constraints on presidential war powers.

Gabbard’s broader assessment reflects a more calibrated view of Iran’s current position. While acknowledging significant damage from US and Israeli operations, she noted that “the regime in Iran appears to be intact but largely degraded by Operation Epic Fury”. At the same time, she warned that Iran and its allies retain the ability to target US and partner interests in the region and could attempt to rebuild military capacity over time.

The internal tension within the administration became more visible this week with the resignation of Joe Kent, head of the National Counterterrorism Center. In stepping down, Kent said Iran “posed no imminent threat” to the United States, marking the first high-level departure tied directly to the war.

Gabbard, who has previously positioned herself as критик длительных военных кампаний, has since aligned publicly with the president’s decision-making authority. “As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat,” she wrote, adding that intelligence agencies are tasked with providing the information on which those decisions are based.