Trump Disagrees With Gabbard on Iran Nuclear Threat \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Trump said Tulsi Gabbard was wrong about Iran’s nuclear intentions. He voiced skepticism about halting Israeli strikes to enable diplomacy. The U.S. president hinted that Iran is nearing weapons-grade nuclear readiness.
Quick Looks
- Trump rejected comments from DNI Tulsi Gabbard about Iran not pursuing nuclear weapons.
- He called her testimony to Congress “wrong” and reiterated Iran’s nuclear threat.
- Gabbard later clarified that her remarks were taken out of context and affirmed alignment with Trump’s stance.
- Trump expressed doubt about halting Israeli strikes to allow diplomatic negotiations.
- He said Israel is “winning” militarily, making it harder to push for a ceasefire.
- Trump criticized Iran’s nuclear energy claims, citing its large oil reserves.
- He distinguished his current Iran policy from his past opposition to the 2003 Iraq War.
- The White House says Trump will decide within two weeks whether to directly engage U.S. forces.
Deep Look
In a week where diplomacy hung in the balance, President Donald Trump reaffirmed his hardline stance on Iran’s nuclear ambitions—publicly contradicting a key member of his administration while signaling growing skepticism over halting Israel’s military offensive to make room for negotiations.
The moment of division came when Trump rejected earlier comments from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who told Congress in March that U.S. intelligence agencies believed Iran was not currently assembling a nuclear weapon. “She’s wrong,” Trump said flatly, after being reminded Gabbard was the source of the claim. “Well then, my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?”
As Commander in Chief, Trump’s response was not only a direct dismissal of his own intelligence chief but a public reorientation of America’s official position toward Iran—one that carries significant implications as tensions rise across the Middle East. The White House later reiterated that the President would decide within two weeks whether the U.S. military would get directly involved in the escalating Israel-Iran conflict.
In a follow-up on social media, Gabbard said her testimony had been “taken out of context” and insisted she shared the President’s view that Iran posed a serious and imminent threat. “America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly,” she wrote. “President Trump has been clear that can’t happen, and I agree.”
That clarification didn’t deter the President from doubling down during a press conference in New Jersey following a fundraiser. When pressed about the possibility of brokering a ceasefire, Trump cast doubt on diplomatic off-ramps. “It’s very hard to stop when you look at it,” he said. “Israel’s doing well in terms of war. And I think you would say that Iran is doing less well. It’s a little bit hard to get somebody to stop.”
Trump’s assessment reflects a stark shift from his earlier “America First” posture, which focused on ending endless wars and prioritizing U.S. disengagement from overseas conflicts. Now, as a second-term president, he is navigating a more complex global order—where American restraint could be perceived as strategic weakness.
The Fordo uranium enrichment facility, buried under a mountain in Iran, has become a flashpoint in this calculus. Intelligence officials have long regarded it as immune to conventional airstrikes, potentially requiring “bunker-buster” munitions that only the U.S. possesses. Reports indicate that Trump is weighing a limited strike on the facility if diplomacy fails—an action that would carry risks of broader regional escalation.
The challenge for President Trump is twofold: maintaining global credibility while aligning internal U.S. intelligence consensus. The public contradiction of Gabbard—who was hand-picked for her unconventional foreign policy stance and outsider credibility—risks undercutting administration cohesion at a time when unity is essential. If high-level officials are viewed as divided on whether Iran is actively seeking nuclear arms, it weakens the foundation for any potential military justification.
Adding to the friction is the diplomatic stalemate between Israel and Iran. Iranian officials have floated the idea that the U.S. could facilitate negotiations by calling on Israel to halt its aerial campaign. Trump dismissed the suggestion, noting: “If somebody is winning, it’s a little bit harder to do than if somebody is losing.” His tone suggested tacit approval of Israel’s strikes, even as U.S. diplomats continue to engage Iranian representatives behind the scenes.
The shift is also drawing domestic political scrutiny. While Trump remains popular among Republicans for his assertive leadership style, some conservatives have raised concerns that escalating toward military engagement contradicts the anti-interventionist promises of his first campaign. Trump addressed those criticisms directly: “There were no weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq]. I never thought there were. That was a very different situation.”
He added, “This is not a hypothetical. This is material. It’s uranium. It’s enrichment. It’s happening right now.”
Trump also criticized Iran’s claim that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, particularly electricity. “You’re sitting on one of the largest oil piles anywhere in the world,” he said. “It’s a little bit hard to see why you’d need that.”
The stakes now couldn’t be higher. A decision by President Trump to authorize a U.S. strike would represent a major escalation, drawing American forces directly into a conflict many hoped to contain. It would also place the U.S. at odds with global allies urging restraint and could inflame tensions with regional powers like Russia and China.
Yet if Trump refrains and Iran proceeds to weaponize its nuclear materials, it could undermine America’s deterrence credibility and trigger a new nuclear arms race in the region.
As the world waits for Trump’s decision, one thing is clear: the debate is no longer whether Iran poses a threat—but how far the United States under President Donald Trump is willing to go to stop it.
Trump Disagrees With Trump Disagrees With Trump Disagrees With
You must Register or Login to post a comment.