But Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe told members of Congress that the president had been briefed on Iran’s possible response to a US attack, including retaliatory strikes on Arab neighbors, and that Tehran could seize a commercial vessel at risk in the Strait of Hormuz. The intelligence assessment prompted the Pentagon to take steps to protect troops from bases in the region before war began, Ratcliffe said.
Gabbard added that while Iran’s “capabilities have been greatly reduced,” the regime “still has the means to threaten through the Strait of Hormuz.”
Regarding Trump’s prediction three weeks ago that the Iranian regime would collapse once the airstrikes were over, Gabbard told lawmakers that the regime was “not whole” but damaged. And Ratcliffe said a coup was not the goal of the plan, called “Epic Fury,” in the US, although that may be the goal of the Israeli government.
“So, to be clear, the president’s intentions regarding Operation Epic Fury did not include regime change. That may be different from what Israel’s intentions were,” Ratcliffe told the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday.
This testimony also revealed the difference in the way Gabbard described the intelligence situation at the time of the war compared to his CIA colleague, Ratcliffe. When pressed by Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committees, Gabbard declined to comment on whether intelligence had indicated that Iran presented an urgent threat and was ready to attack the United States.
Instead, he used neutral language, saying his role was to make sure the president had all the intelligence available, and that only the commander-in-chief could decide whether the country was facing an “imminent threat.”
Ratcliffe, however, struck a different tone, telling senators on Wednesday that Iran has been a threat for years.
“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.
A day later, in a House hearing, Democrats are demanding answers to what intelligence supports the alleged threat.
Ratcliffe said that it is possible that Iran and Israel are heading for war and Tehran would have attacked the United States even if Washington had not participated in the conflict.
Intelligence “indicates that if there is a conflict between Iran and Israel, that the US will be attacked immediately, even if the United States stayed out of that conflict,” said Ratcliffe.
His response echoed the words of Secretary of State Marco Rubio shortly after the war began. Rubio said that the United States should start attacking Iran because it is possible that Israel will attack Iran and the regime will retaliate against US forces in the region.
Rubio later walked back his comments and the administration did not repeat that explanation.
Intelligence officials also raised questions about whether the administration and the Israeli government shared a common agenda in the military campaign, and Gabbard suggested that each side had different goals.
Although the White House and Israeli officials have said there is no sunshine between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump told reporters Thursday that he did not agree with Israel’s decision to bomb a large natural gas field in Iran and that he told Israel not to do it again.
Gabbard said, based on public statements from each government, the goals of the US and Israel differ, with Israel focusing on targeting Iranian leaders and the regime while the US is focusing on attacking Iran’s missile network and other military targets.
Gabbard and other intelligence officials stopped short of supporting President Trump’s statements before the war that Iran would “soon” have intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States. Neither Gabbard nor Ratcliffe responded directly when asked if Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile within six months.
Ratcliffe said Iran’s weapons could strike in the Middle East and Europe, US intelligence agencies have previously said, and that its missiles represent a growing threat.
Gabbard, repeating the conclusions of a previous Defense Intelligence Agency assessment, said Iran could use its space launch program to begin building an operational ICBM “before 2025, if Tehran tries to pursue that capability.”
