US intel chief Gabbard says Iran was not rebuilding enrichment prior to war 

Washington, DC – Tulsi Gabbard, the director of US National Intelligence, said that the United States intelligence community had assessed that Iran was not rebuilding its nuclear enrichment capabilities following US and Israeli attacks last year.

The revelation on Wednesday appeared to undercut one of President Donald Trump’s key justifications for joining Israel in launching the latest war against Iran.

Trump and his top officials have repeatedly cited Iran’s nuclear ambitions as one of the main reasons for abandoning ongoing diplomatic talks in favour of military action.

“As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer,” Gabbard said in written testimony to the Senate intelligence committee, referencing the June 2025 US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, “Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated”.

“There have been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability,” Gabbard said in the written testimony.

Notably, Gabbard did not read that portion of her testimony, which was provided to members of the committee, during her publicly televised oral testimony. When pressed on why she omitted the portion, Gabbard said simply that she did not have enough time. She did not deny the assessment.

“You chose to omit the parts that contradict Trump,” Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat, responded.

Trump has repeatedly said the June 2025 attacks, which came at the end of a 12-day war between Israel and Iran, had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capacity, even as he warned that Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions presented an immediate threat to the US.

Tehran has for years denied it is seeking a nuclear weapon. Nuclear and arms monitors have maintained that even if Tehran were seeking a nuclear weapon, it did not represent a short- or medium-term threat.

The foreign minister of Oman, who had mediated the latest round of US-Iran indirect nuclear talks ahead of the war, has refuted Trump officials’ claims that the most recent negotiations were not yielding any progress.

The Guardian newspaper also reported this week that the United Kingdom’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, had attended the final session of talks and assessed that the Iranian position did not justify an immediate rush to war, citing sources familiar with the situation.

The administration has not settled on any single justification for launching the war, also pointing to Iran’s ballistic capabilities, its potential threat to Israel and US forces in the Middle East, and the totality of the Iranian government’s actions since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The concept of an “imminent threat” is significant in determining the legality of Trump’s decision to strike a sovereign country under international law.

It is also significant for US domestic law, under which presidents can commit the military only in instances of immediate self-defence. Only Congress can officially declare war or authorise extended military campaigns.

Iran’s government ‘intact but largely degraded’

The White House said earlier this week that Iran’s ballistic missile capacity was “functionally destroyed”, with the Iranian navy “effectively destroyed” and the US and Israel dominating the country’s airspace.

Experts have assessed that Iran still maintains the military capacity to inflict significant damage in the region, and it has continued to wield its military influence over the Strait of Hormuz.

Gabbard, meanwhile, offered a more sober assessment than the White House, saying that despite the killings of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, top military officials, and most recently the head of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani and the intelligence minister, Esmail Khatib, “the regime in Iran ⁠appears to be intact but largely degraded by Operation Epic Fury”.

“Even so, Iran and its proxies remain capable of and continue to attack US and allied interests in ⁠the Middle East. If a hostile regime survives, it will seek to begin a years-long effort to rebuild its missiles and UAV [drone] forces,” she said.

Gabbard also listed Iran, alongside Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan, as among the countries “researching and developing an array of novel, advanced, or traditional missile delivery systems, with nuclear and conventional payloads, that put our homeland within range”.

The Washington, DC-based Arms Control Association has said that US intelligence as of 2025 had said it may take Iran until 2035 or longer to develop a missile capable of hitting the US, if it did indeed seek to do so.

Gabbard spoke a day after a top official in her agency, Joe Kent, the director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, resigned in opposition to Trump’s war with Iran.

In his resignation, Kent said that Iran “posed no imminent threat” to the US and that Trump’s decision to enter the war went against his “America First” pledges.

Kent is the first high-profile member of the Trump administration to step down in response to the war.

Gabbard herself had previously been a vocal opponent to indefinite military engagement in the Middle East and war with Iran. A former member of the US House of Representatives from Hawaii, she left the Democratic Party and supported Trump, in part, due to his anti-war vows.

However, in a post on X on Tuesday, Gabbard defended Trump’s decision to go to war.

“As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat, and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country,” she said.

She said her agency’s role was to funnel US intelligence to Trump.

“After carefully reviewing all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took action based on that conclusion,” she said.