Confusion about Iran’s nuclear programme

Controversy surrounds the state of Iran’s nuclear programme. Before the war began, some officials claimed that Iran was only weeks away from producing a nuclear weapon.

But Gabbard, in her prepared remarks released by the committee shortly before the hearing, said last June’s US and Israeli strikes had virtually destroyed Iran’s uranium enrichment programme and that Tehran had made no effort to revive it.

In making that claim, according to AFP, she rejected one of the arguments used by US President Donald Trump and Israeli officials to defend the need for a military operation against Iran: that Tehran was trying to develop a nuclear weapon.

However, at the hearing itself she acknowledged that US intelligence agencies had recorded Iran’s attempts to recover from the damage to its infrastructure as early as July 2025. The contradiction has further deepened uncertainty about the true status of the programme.

Another key issue, according to Reuters, is what information Donald Trump had before deciding to join Israel in launching attacks.

According to sources familiar with intelligence reports, the White House chief was warned that an attack on Iran could trigger retaliatory action against US allies in the Gulf. Yet the president later claimed that Iran’s retaliation had surprised him.

At the same time, intelligence reports suggested that Iran might try to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for global oil and gas shipments. Gabbard declined to confirm whether she had personally briefed the president on those risks. She said only that the intelligence community was providing the president with ‘the best available objective information’.

Resignation in the intelligence community

Tensions within the administration were underscored by the unexpected resignation of Joe Kent, head of the National Counterterrorism Center and a close associate of Gabbard.

Kent became the first senior official to resign over the war. In a public letter he said he did not consider the conflict justified.

‘I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.’

CIA Director John Ratcliffe disagreed with that assessment, stressing that Iran has long posed a threat to the United States.

Political dispute intensifies

Republican Senator Tom Cotton praised President Trump’s actions and argued that the decisions had contributed to a more secure world.

Conversely, Democratic Senator Mark Warner criticised the administration for failing to keep Congress properly informed and also pointed to a shift in intelligence resources which, he said, had weakened monitoring of Iran.

Gabbard’s Senate hearing took place as the war entered its third week. Reuters noted that it was her first major public appearance in months.

Lawmakers from both sides of the political spectrum are demanding more information about the US military campaign. Criticism has focused in particular on the lack of transparency from President Donald Trump’s administration.

Democratic Senator Michael Bennet has openly criticised the ‘complete lack of clarity’ over the US strategy towards Iran.

(reuters, mja)