WASHINGTON — Director of National Intelligence Tulasi Gabbard declined to say whether Iran’s nuclear program poses an “imminent threat,” deflecting questions from lawmakers about whether U.S. intelligence supports the White House’s claims about its rationale for launching the war.
Gabbard’s congressional testimony at the annual hearing on worldwide threats on Wednesday came a day after top deputy Joe Kent resigned in protest against the Iran war, saying the Tehran administration posed no imminent threat and that a joint US-Israeli air campaign was unnecessary.
Kent and Gabbard, both military veterans, have found political common ground on their opposition to foreign military interventions and “regime change” wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gabbard has not publicly endorsed the decision to go to war, remaining largely silent on the US-Israeli air campaign that began on February 28.
She appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee as the war entered its third week, with no clear end in sight. The White House has changed the rationale for launching the attack, and Iran has retaliated, essentially shutting down a critical route for commercial shipping.
The conflict has caused a spike in gas prices, creating political problems for President Donald Trump at home ahead of congressional midterm elections in November.
Unlike other Cabinet officials, Gabbard’s reluctance to fully endorse the president’s decision to wage war on Iran raised fresh questions about her standing in the administration.
In her opening statement, Gabbard omitted language in her written remarks that Iran had not sought to rebuild its uranium enrichment capacity after the US airstrike in June.
“Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was dismantled. Since then there have been no efforts to try to rebuild their enrichment capability,” his prepared remarks read, according to his written statement posted on the Senate Intelligence Committee website.
That assessment appeared to contradict Trump, who said Iran was working to rebuild its nuclear program.
The ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee is Sen. Mark Warner asked Gabbard why he omitted the paragraph.
She replied: “I recognized that time was running long and I omitted some parts of my oral statements.”
Her answers remained neutral throughout Wednesday’s hearing.
Sen. on the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. When pressed by Rep. John Ossoff, D.-Ga., Gabbard echoed an online statement posted Tuesday after Kent’s resignation, saying only the commander in chief could represent an urgent threat to the country.
“False,” replied Ossaph. “You’re dodging the question because a candid statement would be against the White House.”
CIA Director John Ratcliffe, R-Texas Sen. When asked a similar question by John Cornyn, he said he disagreed with Kent’s objections to the war.
“I think Iran has been a constant threat to the United States for a long time and poses an immediate threat at this time,” Ratcliffe said.
Democrats in the hearing pressed Gabbard about what intelligence Trump had been told about how Iran would respond to a potential U.S. attack, saying the president expressed surprise about Iranian attacks on neighboring countries.
Before Gabbard and Ratcliffe launched US airstrikes on Iran, US intelligence indicated that Iran would launch attacks on energy sites in the Middle East and attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz.
