Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday that the Iranian regime is “degraded” but still intact after almost three weeks of war with the U.S. and Israel.
Gabbard spoke during her first public appearance since the war in Iran began on Feb. 28. Senators questioned her on Iran, homeland security concerns, election integrity and broader global threats.
Also testifying before the committee were CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Kash Patel, National Security Agency chief Lt. Gen. William Hartman and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. James Adams.
Comments on Iran
Gabbard addressed numerous threats during her opening remarks, including protecting the U.S.-Mexico border, efforts against drug cartels and the war in Iran.
But Gabbard, who last year told the same panel that Iran posed no immediate threat to the U.S., noted that her testimony would not reflect her personal thoughts, but rather “it “conveys “the intelligence community’s assessment of the threats facing U.S. citizens, our homeland and interests.”
Gabbard said the Iranian regime is “intact but largely degraded,” noting it has limited options due to leadership deaths and the destruction of military assets.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked Gabbard asked about what he called “foreseeable” and “predicted” consequences of striking Iran. To those questions, Gabbard said everything coming out of Iran “was not only foreseeable but predicted by the intelligence agencies.”
The intelligence community, she said, “has always taken very seriously the threat of the Iranian regime’s missile capabilities and how our American troops in the region may be put at risk.”
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., asked Ratcliffe about the Trump administration’s priorities overseas.
Bennet said the “war is not ending, it is escalating,” and said the administration’s goals have “become less clear.
Ratcliffe replied that the defined goals are clear: to eliminate Iran’s nuclear and military power.
Closing the Strait and Russian interference
The other major sticking points during the hearing were the Strait of Hormuz, which remains mostly closed amid the ongoing operations in Iran, and Russian interference.
Both Ratcliffe and Gabbard confirmed that intelligence before the U.S. attacked Iran suggested that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the global oil supply passes, was possible.
“This has long been an assessment of the [intelligence community] that Iran would likely hold the Strait of Hormuz as leverage,” Gabbard said.
Asked about possible Russian interference in the operation, both Gabbard and Ratcliffe declined to discuss it in public. The committee was scheduled to meet in private later Wednesday.
The questioning came after The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Russia was providing Iran with intelligence to target U.S. forces.
Did Iran pose a threat?
Wednesday’s testimony came amid renewed scrutiny over the Trump administration’s decision to attack Iran. Both President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have said Iran posed an imminent threat to the U.S., so the president decided to take action.
However, on Tuesday, the Trump administration’s top counterterrorism official, Joe Kent, announced his immediate resignation. Kent reported directly to Gabbard.
In a resignation letter, Kent said he couldn’t support the war in Iran, saying there was no imminent threat to the U.S.
His opinion aligns with previous intelligence reports that suggested Iran was “not building a nuclear weapon.”
However, Trump, Hegseth and other officials continue to emphasize that there was a threat.
Following Kent’s resignation announcement on Tuesday, Gabbard said on X that the decision to attack Iran was up to the discretion of the president.
She noted her office is “responsible for helping coordinate and integrate all intelligence to provide the President and Commander in Chief with the best information available to inform his decisions.”
She went on to say that after Trump reviewed the intelligence the office provided, he “concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took action based on that conclusion.”
During Wednesday’s hearing, Ratcliffe also noted he disagreed with Kent’s opinion. He said he had numerous meetings with Trump prior to the decision to attack, and emphasized Iran did pose a threat to the U.S.
“What I can tell you is that 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.”