Washington, DC — Fresh doubts are emerging over the United States’ decision to go to war with Iran, after new testimony from intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard contradicted a key claim made by President Donald Trump, according to Al Jazeera News.
In written testimony to the Senate intelligence committee, Gabbard stated that US intelligence agencies found no evidence that Iran had tried to rebuild its nuclear enrichment program after the 2025 US and Israeli strikes. She said the operation had effectively destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities, adding that “there have been no efforts since then” to restore them.
This assessment appears to weaken one of Trump’s main arguments for launching military action that Iran posed an urgent nuclear threat. While the president has repeatedly warned of Iran’s ambitions, experts and international monitors have long said the country did not present an immediate danger.
Notably, Gabbard did not include this key finding in her public remarks. When questioned, she said time constraints were the reason. Senator Mark Warner criticized the omission, suggesting it avoided contradicting the president.
The controversy comes at a sensitive time, as the legal and political justification for the war continues to be debated. Under both US and international law, military action without congressional approval is generally permitted only in cases of immediate self defense, a claim now under increasing scrutiny.
Adding to the pressure on the administration, a major resignation has further exposed divisions within the government. Joe Kent stepped down in protest, stating that Iran posed “no imminent threat” and that the war went against Trump’s stated “America First” policy.
Kent was the first high ranking official to openly oppose the decision. Now, Gabbard’s testimony makes her the second senior government figure to challenge the narrative behind the war. Together, their positions raise serious questions about the credibility of the president’s justification for military action.
Despite this, Gabbard has publicly defended Trump, saying the final decision rests with the commander in chief after reviewing intelligence. She acknowledged, however, that Iran, while weakened, remains capable of carrying out attacks through its regional influence.
As debate continues in Washington, these conflicting accounts highlight a deeper concern: whether the decision to go to war was based on clear and consistent evidence, or shaped by shifting political reasoning.
