U.S. Intelligence Chief Contradicts Trump on Iran’s Nuclear Program

Tulsi Gabbard, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, has offered an assessment that appears to contradict repeated claims by President Donald Trump regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

In written testimony submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Gabbard stated that Iran was not rebuilding its nuclear enrichment capabilities prior to the outbreak of the current conflict.

She further said that since the June 2025 strikes by the United States and Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Tehran has not attempted to restart its program.

The operation, referred to as “Operation Midnight Hammer,” reportedly destroyed Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. According to Gabbard, there has been no evidence of renewed efforts to revive the program since then.

The assessment, which became public on Wednesday, is seen as potentially weakening one of the main justifications cited by Trump for joining Israel in the ongoing war against Iran.

Trump and senior members of his administration have repeatedly pointed to Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions as a key reason for abandoning diplomatic engagement and pursuing military action.

The conflict began on February 28, when the United States and Israel launched joint military operations against Iran. Since then, hostilities have steadily intensified.

Iran has long denied pursuing nuclear weapons, insisting its program is for peaceful purposes. Independent nuclear and weapons analysts have also maintained that even if Tehran were pursuing nuclear capabilities, it would not pose an immediate or medium-term threat.

Despite this, the Trump administration has imposed multiple sanctions on Iran and pursued negotiations aimed at reaching a nuclear agreement. Officials had argued that talks were yielding no meaningful progress.

However, Badr Albusaidi, who has acted as a mediator in indirect talks between Washington and Tehran, rejected claims that negotiations had stalled before the war.

Meanwhile, according to reports by The Guardian, Jonathan Powell attended the final round of discussions and concluded that there was no clear justification for rushing into war based on Iran’s position at the time.

Analysts say the U.S. administration has cited multiple reasons for the military action, including Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, perceived threats to U.S. and Israeli forces in the Middle East, and the broader conduct of the Iranian government since the Iranian Revolution.

Under international law, the concept of an “imminent threat” is critical in determining the legality of military action against a sovereign state. It is also central to U.S. domestic law, under which a president may authorize military force primarily for immediate self-defense. Otherwise, only Congress has the authority to formally declare war or approve extended military operations.