Senators grill Gabbard: If Iran's nuclear infrastructure was 'obliterated', why did US enter war?

Washington, DC — In the marble halls of the US Senate, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard faced a hearing that cut to the core of America's escalating war with Iran.

Flanked by CIA Director John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Kash Patel, Gabbard presented her assessment of worldwide threats amid ongoing strikes. The session, however, exposed sharp tensions in the official US narrative that has framed the conflict.

She avoided direct answers about whether the intelligence community had briefed the Trump administration in advance on the likelihood that Iran would launch strikes against neighbouring oil-producing nations, or close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime pathway through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas flows.

In her written testimony, Gabbard said Operation Midnight Hammer in 2025 “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability, with underground facilities buried under tonnes of cement and steel, and no evidence of rebuilding since.

She, however, did not read that section aloud in her opening remarks, citing time constraints, and confirmed it only under questioning. The statement challenges claims of an imminent nuclear threat that helped justify US military action.

If the core infrastructure has remained untouched for nearly a year, the urgency argument weakens significantly.

Here is where the Senate hearing turned sharp.

Senator Jon Ossoff leaned in, pressing Gabbard on a question that cut through the war’s justification. Did Iran pose an "imminent nuclear threat" before the United States and Israel launched strikes on Tehran last month?

Moments earlier, Gabbard had moved past a critical section of her prepared remarks. The omitted lines were stark.

Iran’s nuclear programme had been "obliterated" following "Operation Midnight Hammer" last June. There had been "no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capacity."

Ossoff read her own words back to her in the chamber and asked if this reflected the intelligence community’s assessment.

"Yes," the Director of National Intelligence replied.

Then he raised the White House position.

"The White House stated on March 1 of this year that this war was launched and was ‘a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat opposed by the Iranian regime,'" he said, before asking if that too reflected the intelligence community’s view.

The tension lingered in the room

Earlier, Vice Chair Mark Warner had already zeroed in on the same omission. He pointed to the section she left out. Gabbard explained she "skipped" it because she "recognised that the time was running long."

Warner did not let it pass.

"You chose to omit the parts that contradict the president," he replied. 

Definition of ‘imminent threat’ rests with president

Gabbard repeatedly declined to state whether Iran posed an imminent danger before the strikes.

She told senators, including Jon Ossoff, that "The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president."

She would not confirm whether the intelligence community had assessed an immediate nuclear risk.

The exchange underscored a clear division between US intelligence analysis and political decision-making.

It also followed the high-stakes resignation on Tuesday of Joe Kent, Director of the National Counterterrorism Centre, who argued that no imminent threat to the US from Iran existed.

Iranian establishment remains fully intact

Gabbard described the Iranian government as "intact but largely degraded", saying its conventional forces have been significantly weakened by US and Israeli war.

She warned that if the government survives, it could spend years rebuilding missiles, drones and other capabilities.

She also referenced long-standing intelligence assessments that Iran might use the Strait of Hormuz as leverage in response to pressure, while declining to disclose details of pre-war briefings to the president.

The picture she presented combined tactical gains with longer-term uncertainty.

Wednesday’s Senate Intelligence Committee exchanges unfolded amid pointed questioning from several top senators seeking clarity on how American intelligence assessments aligned with Trump’s decision to attack Iran.

While Gabbard attempted to provide answers on some points, she deflected and withheld others for classified sessions.

As the Iran war looks set to intensify, with further hearings expected, broader questions remain about whether US intelligence fully supported the move to go to war with Iran, or whether other extraneous factors shaped the course of events.