Tulsi Gabbard: It’s Not My Job to Say Whether Iran Was a Threat

Democrats grilled top national security officials Wednesday about what U.S. intelligence showed in the lead-up to President Donald Trump’s decision to launch a military conflict with Iran — in particular whether there was evidence the country posed an “imminent” threat to the United States.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Kash Patel and two other national security officers testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee as part of an annual assessment of global threats.

When it came to Iran, the officials declined to elaborate on how they briefed the president — and even suggested that determining the threat level of a foreign regime did not fall under their job duties.

Sen. Jon Ossoff asked the panel whether the intelligence community had assessed that the Iranian regime posed an “imminent nuclear threat.” Gabbard, a past critic of America’s wars in the Middle East, replied that the only person who can determine that is the president.

“False,” Ossoff quipped back.

“It’s not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” Gabbard responded.

Other Democrats probed officials on what exactly they had advised the president before he ordered an attack, specifically on whether Iran would strike Gulf states or seize the Strait of Hormuz.

Sen. Angus King pointed out that the president last week said that “nobody” knew Iran would strike neighboring states. The senator asked the panel: “Did you tell him?”

Ratcliffe responded that the president receives intelligence briefings “constantly,” and that he had not heard the comments mentioned by King.

“Iran had specific plans to hit U.S. interests in energy sites across the region, and that’s why the Department of War and the Department of State took measures for force protection and personnel protection in advance of Operation Epic Fury,” Ratcliffe said.” I think that’s what’s most important.”

Gabbard replied that it had “long been an assessment of the IC that Iran would likely hold the Strait of Hormuz as leverage.”

Angus pressed further: “Was that communicated to the president?”

Neither Gabbard or Ratcliffe said yes.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement last week that the “Pentagon has been planning for Iran’s desperate and reckless closure of the Strait of Hormuz for DECADES, and it has been part of the Trump Administration’s planning well before Operation Epic Fury was ever launched.”

Sen. Ron Wyden pressed the witnesses on whether the intelligence community stuck to its previous predictions of how Iran might respond.

“Every problem we’re seeing now was not only foreseeable, but was actually predicted by the intelligence agencies,” Wyden said. “In the lead up to the start of this war three weeks ago, did the intelligence agencies stick to their assessment that, in response to an attack, the Iranians had the capabilities to shut down the Strait of Hormuz?”

Gabbard responded that the intelligence community has continued to brief the president with intelligence related to the operation.

Sen. Mark Warner asked why Gabbard deviated from her prepared remarks, which said that Iran had made “no efforts” since the U.S. bombed its nuclear facilities to “rebuild their enrichment capabilities.” That contradicts what Trump said about why he started the conflict.

Gabbard said she skipped it because her time was running short.

“You chose to omit the parts that contradict the president,” Warner hit back.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn also asked about an assessment by Joe Kent, who resigned this week as director of the National Counterterrorism Center after airing his disagreements over the war with Iran. Ratcliffe said he disagreed with Kent.

“Iran has been a constant threat to the United States for an extended period of time,” Ratcliffe said.

The hearing did not focus on Gabbard’s long-held anti-war positions. In her 2020 bid for president, she campaigned on avoiding “regime-change wars” in the region and previously warned against provoking war with Iran.

The departure of Kent, a close adviser to Gabbard, raised questions about her allegiances.

“[Kent is] the first of many” to leave, a Republican strategist close to the White House told NOTUS earlier this week. “Tulsi is inevitable.”

Leavitt told reporters Wednesday that Gabbard’s job was not in jeopardy. “Not to my knowledge,” she said. “Obviously that’s a question for the president, but I haven’t heard him say that at all.”