Former presidential Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, now US Director of National Intelligence, is now at the center of that stormy exchange. This discussion is truly focused on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Gabbard’s recent congressional testimony in March asserted that the intelligence community assessed Iran is not close to a nuclear breakout. This conclusion is in stark contrast to claims from former President Donald Trump that there was no need to worry.
Though we disagree on many fronts, during her testimony, Gabbard made a strong point that Iran is “not in fact seeking a nuclear weapon.” She estimated it would take the country at least three years to create and produce one. This timeline matches up with other reports by four different people who have seen a US intelligence assessment, providing further evidence that Gabbard was right. But under Trump’s administration it seems they’re moving in the opposite direction, considering a possible pre-emptive strike against Iran.
Unlike Trump, there has been a deliberate attempt from Gabbard’s camp to harmonize her politically advantageous assessments with the president’s dangerous rhetoric. She stated on CNN, “Trump was saying the same thing that I said in my annual threat assessment back in March.” This move to fall in line with Trump comes despite increasing alarm over her apparent marginalization from key decision-making meetings and processes on Iran.
In the wake of a Camp David meeting, Gabbard released a video warning about the “reality of what’s at stake, what we are facing now,” highlighting the potential for nuclear war. Many, including Trump confidant Steve Bannon, viewed her absence from the meeting as an indication that US policy towards Iran was changing direction. They are convinced this regulatory change could be a big deal. Bannon questioned, “Why was Gabbard not invited to the Camp David meeting all day?”
Gabbard’s opposition to military actions in the Middle East is nothing new. She’s been critical of past US interventions in the region, which is why Trump nominated her to her current position. These actions have frequently been influenced by the larger intelligence community. Her stance on Iran’s nuclear capabilities has increasingly put her at odds with Trump’s inner circle.
The former president has expressed alarm over Iran’s nuclear potential, stating, “I think they were very close to having one.” Gabbard’s judgments resoundingly refute this view. As the possibility of extending military force has receded, friction has developed inside the administration as it weighs its options for dealing with Iran. As debates heat up over US military intervention, in what way—if any—Gabbard’s perspective will shape prevailing strategy is unclear.
On the political stage, they’re not waiting for Gabbard to introduce a bill to step up their environmental justice game. As Senator JD Vance recently stated, “That decision ultimately should be up to the president. His advice was to let the president think through what the final plan would be. Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson defended Trump’s approach while acknowledging Gabbard’s contributions: “I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.”
Amid all these tensions, Gabbard has been very frustrated by how she’s been misunderstood—or deliberate attempts to misinterpret her views. Sadly for many in the media that’s not a concern when they don’t give the time of day to read what I stated,” she added. We couldn’t agree more with her plea for clarity at this important time. Inconveniently for military policy-makers, global economic implications are the most frequently considered outcome of military action.