Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declined to say whether intelligence showed that Iran posed an “imminent threat” to the U.S. prior to the launch of recent offensive operations, as President Donald Trump repeatedly has asserted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an \u2018imminent nuclear threat\u2019 posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?” Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., asked Gabbard during the Senate Intelligence Committee\u2019s annual worldwide threats hearing Wednesday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president,” Gabbard said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The White House has repeatedly argued Iran\u2019s nuclear stockpiles and ballistic missile capacity pose an imminent threat to the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime,” Trump said March 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ossoff pressed Gabbard further Wednesday: “Was it the intelligence community\u2019s assessment \u2026 there was an \u2018imminent nuclear threat\u2019? Yes or no?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“It is not the intelligence community\u2019s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” Gabbard said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Gabbard highlighted the impact of U.S. operations in Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“The IC assesses that Operation Epic Fury is advancing fundamental change in the region,” she said. Iran\u2019s “conventional military power projection capabilities have largely been destroyed, leaving limited options. Iran\u2019s strategic position has been significantly degraded.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tulsi Gabbard ath the Senate Intelligence Committee’s worldwide threats hearing<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testifies before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Kevin Lamarque\/Reuters )<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Her refusal to directly answer comes one day after Trump\u2019s director at the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, resigned after publicly stating he did not believe Iran posed an imminent threat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CIA Director John Ratcliffe struck a more assertive tone at the hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Is there anything to indicate that Iran had ceased in its nuclear ambitions or in its desire to continue to build ballistic missiles capable of threatening American troops and allies in the Middle East?” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, asked him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“No. In fact, the intelligence reflects the contrary,” Ratcliffe said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“So you disagree with Mr. Kent?” Cornyn asked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“I do,” Ratcliffe said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“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,” he later added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Top administration officials have argued that Iran was building up its missile stockpiles to a point where foreign powers could no longer effectively intervene.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Iran is not believed to currently possess missiles capable of reaching the U.S. homeland, but Trump has said the Islamic Republic is working toward that capability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“They attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas and could soon reach the American homeland,” Trump said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Defense Intelligence Agency said in May 2025 that Iran could develop a long-range missile capable of reaching the U.S. by 2035. Russia, China and North Korea, some of Iran\u2019s closest allies, already possess intercontinental ballistic missiles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Iran possessed roughly 441 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% as of mid-2025, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Enough, if further enriched to weapons-grade levels, to fuel multiple nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Experts estimate that final enrichment to 90% could take weeks under ideal conditions. However, producing a functional nuclear weapon would require additional steps, including weaponization and delivery system development, which could take months or longer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman, rose to national prominence in part for her opposition to U.S. military interventions overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
She has said little publicly about the Iran conflict, but in a statement posted to X following Kent\u2019s resignation, Gabbard emphasized that the determination of an imminent threat rests with the president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people to be our President and Commander in Chief. As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat,” she wrote on X.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“After carefully reviewing all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took action based on that conclusion.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Her comments underscored a central tension in Wednesday\u2019s hearing: While the administration has framed the conflict as a response to an imminent threat, intelligence officials stopped short of publicly affirming that assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n