Intel chief Gabbard refuses to say if Iran poses an ‘imminent threat’ to the US
WASHINGTON – Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declined to say whether Iran’s nuclear program poses an “imminent threat,” deflecting questions from lawmakers about whether the U.S. intelligence community supports the White House’s assertions about the cause of the war.
Gabbard’s congressional testimony Wednesday at an annual hearing on global threats came a day after the top deputy, Joe Kent, resigned in protest over the Iran war, saying the Tehran regime posed no imminent threat and that the joint US-Israeli air campaign was unnecessary.
Kent and Gabbard, both military veterans, have found a base of political consensus through their opposition to foreign military intervention and “regime change” wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. Gabbard has not publicly acknowledged the decision to go to war, remaining largely silent on the US-Israeli air campaign that began on Feb. 28.
His appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee comes as the war enters its third week, with no clear end in sight. The White House has given shifting reasons for launching this offensive action, and Iran has retaliated, essentially shutting down a critical trade route.
The conflict has caused gas prices to rise, creating political problems for President Donald Trump at home ahead of November’s midterm and congressional elections.
Gabbard’s reluctance to provide full evidence of the president’s decision to fight Iran, unlike other Cabinet officials, has raised new questions about his administration’s standing.
In her opening statement, Gabbard omitted language included in her written remarks that Iran had not attempted to rebuild its uranium enrichment capacity after the US attack in June.
“Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was dismantled. There have been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capacity,” his prepared remarks read, according to his written statement posted on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s website.
That assessment appeared to contradict Trump, who has said Iran is working to rebuild its nuclear program.
Sen. Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, asked Gabbard why she left the department.
He replied: “I saw that the time was running out, and I skipped some of my speeches that I had given orally.”
His responses were neutral throughout Wednesday’s issue.
When pressed by Sen. Jon Ossoff, D.-Ga., on the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, Gabbard echoed an online statement he sent Tuesday after Kent’s resignation, saying only the commander-in-chief can decide what constitutes an immediate threat to the country.
“Lies,” Ossoff replied. “He’s avoiding the question because a clear statement would contradict the White House.”
CIA Director John Ratcliffe, however, weighed in when asked the same question by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he disagreed with Kent’s opposition to the war.
“I think Iran has been a threat to the United States for a long time, and it posed a threat at that time,” Ratcliffe said.
Democrats in the audience also pressed Gabbard about what intelligence had been passed on to Trump about how Iran would respond to a possible attack on the US, saying the president had expressed surprise at Iran’s strikes on neighboring countries.
Gabbard and Ratcliffe said that before the US launched airstrikes against Iran, US intelligence agencies indicated that Iran might launch attacks on power centers in the Middle East and try to close the Strait of Hormuz.
