U.S. intelligence leaders testified on Wednesday that Iran’s clerical leadership has been damaged but not ousted from power, and the mullahs may rebuild their degraded military capabilities over the next several years despite ongoing U.S. and Israeli strikes.
The top civilian witnesses before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Kash Patel — mostly tempered President Donald Trump’s claims that the military danger posed by Iran has been largely vanquished, aside from its ongoing threats to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
What’s more, the hearing revealed that while Iran has long had ambitions for nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles, there is little indication Iran was dangerously close to achieving either of those goals before the war was launched, contrary to White House contentions.
The officials also did not confirm Trump’s position that Iran was imminently poised to launch a first strike missile attack against U.S. forces in the region before America and Israel began the war on Feb. 28.
The closest any of them came was Ratcliffe saying Iran had “plans to hit” U.S. interests and energy sites in the region, which is not the same as saying such strikes were about to commence any time soon, as Trump and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt have seemed to suggest.
“I think Iran has been a constant threat to the United States for an extended period of time and posed an immediate threat at this time,” Ratcliffe said.
Senators from both parties said Tuesday they have heard no evidence that an imminent Iranian strike is what prompted Israel and America to launch the war on Feb. 28.
Gamut of threats
The hearing, which occurs annually, was focused on the intelligence community’s written report on 2026 threats.
Joining Gabbard, Patel and Ratcliffe on the dais were Marine Corps Lt. Gen. James Adams, who directs the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Army Lt. Gen. William Hartman, who is the acting commander of U.S. Cyber Command and performing the duties of the director of the National Security Agency and chief of the Central Security Service.
The hearing covers the gamut of worldwide threats each year, from cyberattacks to terrorism.
On Wednesday, a number of senators, led by Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the panel’s top Democrat, castigated Gabbard over a number of concerns, topped by Gabbard showing up at an FBI raid on an election center in Georgia earlier this year in the name of countering election interference.
But the Iran war was front and center in lawmakers’ questioning at the hearing — including the justification for starting it and that country’s surviving military capabilities.
On many war-related matters on which Democrats and a handful of Republicans pressed for specifics or clarity, the officials avoided answering or deferred replies to a subsequent classified setting.
For example, under questioning from Sens. Angus King, I-Maine, and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., the intelligence agency directors would not even say whether Trump had asked in the lead-up to the war for an assessment of the risk that the Strait of Hormuz could be choked off. They also didn’t say whether they provided one, let alone what they might have said.
The witnesses also steered clear of confirming, denying or otherwise addressing reports of growing Russian military and intelligence support to Iran to help that nation’s military target American servicemembers.
Nor did the officials shed light — under questioning from Sens. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and Jack Reed, D-R.I. — on the effect the war is having on America’s ability to help arm NATO nations or those European allies who are now footing virtually the entire bill to support Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression.
Nuclear weapons
Trump said on March 1 that the strikes on Iran were necessary to take out Iran’s “imminent nuclear threat.”
Under intense questioning from Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., Gabbard declined to say whether Iran constituted an imminent nuclear threat.
Moreover, the picture of Iran’s nuclear program was muddled by the fact that Gabbard’s spoken testimony contradicted her prepared written remarks.
In her prepared statement, Gabbard depicted an Iranian nuclear threat that has been virtually nonexistent for months.
Gabbard wrote that, as a result U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last year, the program was “obliterated.” That word choice echoed a claim Trump made last year about the operation, even as press reports on intelligence assessments stated that the damage was actually less than 100 percent.
Gabbard’s written testimony added: “There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. The entrances to the underground facilities that were bombed have been buried and shuttered with cement.”
U.S. intelligence agencies, she wrote, “continue to monitor for any early indicators on what position the current or any new leadership in Iran will take with regard to authorizing a nuclear weapons program” — a statement that reflects the longstanding U.S. intelligence finding that Iran is believed to have not committed to building nuclear weapons, even if Iran has been developing the enriched uranium that could be used for that purpose.
But Gabbard testified something different in person, omitting the sentences about Iran’s nuclear weapons being obliterated with no sign of a rebuild and instead only stating simply that Iran “was trying to recover from the severe damage to its nuclear infrastructure” from last June’s strikes.
Gabbard has been a longtime critic of U.S. wars in the Middle East and has specifically argued against war on Iran — a position that puts her at odds with the White House.
In an unusual statement at the outset of her testimony, Gabbard said she was testifying about U.S. agencies’ views, not her personal opinions.
Gabbard’s testimony on Iranian nuclear weapons at last year’s threats hearing contrasted sharply with this year’s.
Iran, she said then, “is not building a nuclear weapon” and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei “has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”
Last June, Trump disputed her assessment, saying: “She’s wrong.”
Missiles
On Iran’s ballistic missiles, the intelligence officials conveyed concerns that few in Congress dispute about the pre-war trend of Iran increasing its capabilities — especially short- and medium-range missiles.
But there was no testimony stating that Iran is poised to build an intercontinental model that could hit the United States by any certain time.
When Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., asked if Ratcliffe could confirm that Iran might have an ICBM in “as few as six months,” Ratcliffe said: “If left unimpeded, yes, senator, they would have the ability to range missiles to the continental U.S.”
But Ratcliffe gave no timeline.
Gabbard said Iran has “previously demonstrated space launch and other technology it could use to begin to develop a militarily viable ICBM before 2035 should Tehran attempt to pursue that capability.” She did not say how much before 2035 that could happen.
Conventional arms
Iran’s conventional weapons are significantly degraded as a result of U.S. and Israeli bombing, Gabbard said.
The clerical regime that has run Iran’s government for some 47 years continues to hold the reins, she said, despite the killing of several of its top leaders.
But if any regime antithetical to U.S. interests stays in power in Iran, it would be expected to rebuild the country’s military capabilities, setting up the prospect of an indefinite conflict between the United States and Israel and Iran even if at a lower tempo, she suggested.
The regime in Iran “appears to be intact but largely degraded due to attacks on its leadership and military capabilities,” she said. “Its conventional military power projection capabilities have largely been destroyed, leaving limited options.”
But, she added, if a “hostile” Iranian regime survives the war, “it will likely seek to begin a years-long effort to rebuild its military missiles” and drones.
Despite the testimony undercutting or at least not buttressing some of the White House’s claims about Iran’s pre-war military capabilities, Republicans were solidly behind Trump’s decision to go to war.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., cited Iran’s growing missile procurements, its nuclear “intentions” and its support for militant groups in the region as justification enough for him.
“I think the president made the right choice,” Rounds said. “It is never a good time for a war, but at some point you’ve got to look at what your best possibilities are for protecting those young men and women who are in harm’s way.”
