Donald Trump cooked a story to justify U.S. Iran attacks, but forgot to share the tale with his own intelligence chiefs -
By: Sadik Hossain (We Got This Covered)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
America’s top intelligence officials have told Congress that Iran ‘s nuclear program has been “obliterated” and does not pose an “imminent” threat to the United States . This testimony directly contradicts President Donald Trump ‘s stated reasons for launching Operation Epic Fury, a joint American-Israeli military offensive against Iran. The statements raise serious questions about the factual basis for the military action.
The Senate Intelligence Committee hearing took place on Capitol Hill. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe appeared before senators, along with FBI Director Kash Patel, DIA Director Lt. Gen. James Adams, and Acting NSA Director Lt. Gen. William Hartman. Together, as The First Post reports, their assessments painted a very different picture from what the administration had previously told the public.
Before the operation began, President Trump had claimed that Iran was only weeks away from building a nuclear bomb, calling it an “imminent” threat to the United States. This claim was a central part of the administration’s justification for launching Operation Epic Fury. However, the intelligence chiefs directly contradicted this at the hearing.
Both Gabbard and Ratcliffe stated clearly that Iran’s nuclear program has been “obliterated” and has not resumed any activity. They also said that Iran’s missile program remains nearly a decade away from being able to harm the United States. These assessments directly undercut the idea that Iran posed any immediate danger to American security.
The intelligence directors were clear that Iran does not pose an “imminent” threat to the United States. This matters greatly because the idea of an “imminent” threat is often used as a legal and political reason to justify preemptive military action. Senator Lindsey Graham has also weighed in on the broader Iran situation, and you can read about Graham’s stance on invading Iranian territory to understand where key Republican voices stand.
Their testimony essentially rejected the administration’s main reason for attacking Iran and pointed to a lack of factual evidence supporting the claims that led to Operation Epic Fury. A military operation of this scale would normally be backed by strong intelligence, but this testimony suggests that was not the case here.
Despite directly contradicting the president’s earlier statements, Gabbard and Ratcliffe still tried to defend Trump’s actions during the hearing. They found themselves in the difficult position of publicly refuting the factual basis for the operation while still supporting the commander-in-chief. Trump’s legal and political troubles are not limited to foreign policy either, as a federal prosecutor controversy in New Jersey has put his administration under further scrutiny.
The gap between what Trump told the public and what his own intelligence chiefs told Congress is now a matter of official record. The political and legal implications of this contradiction are likely to be debated for a long time to come.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that are known plagiarists, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt/deflect the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion. Use of the terms "leftist" or "lefty" will also be subject to deletion. ©
Tags
Who is online
114 visitors
In her written statement Tulsi Gabbard specifically said that Iran did not reinvigorate their nuclear program after the attacks last June. (Operation Midnight Hammer).
(deleted)
You want a pathologically lying moron to decide what is "imminent" ? wow.
Like it or not is irrelevant. It is his responsibility and his call even if you or the lying Senate and Congress don't think so..
The top intelligence officer in the United States said, in writing, that Iran did not restart the attempt toward a nuclear weapon after they were "obliterated" last summer. What does that mean to you? Nothing?
It is also irrelevant what the top intelligence officer in the United States said, in writing, that Iran did not restart the attempt toward a nuclear weapon. It is the call of the President if there is an imminent threat.
Yes, he has a feeling in his bones that they restarted.
That's a joke, right?
Based on your comment, if the head of NASA said in writing that the Moon is not made of green cheese that would irrelevant and it would be the call of the President.
I have a feeling in my bones but it's arthritis
What's the point in having the NSA if the POTUS is going to make unilateral decisions with nobody's input?
I get it, you don't think there was an imminent threat. Based on the limited information I have I don't think there was either. But whose call it is to make that determination and whose is actually the only opinion that counts before military action is taken (for 60 days anyway)?
That is a ridiculous comparison
The point is not if he should, the point is that he can.
It's called reductio ad absurdum and it proves how ridiculous your joke of a comment is.
The point is whether or not he is competent to make these decisions. Its his call as to whether or not we bomb Sri Lanka tomorrow. He's nuts, so it cant be completely ruled out.
The comment was:
how is it possible for me to see someone's comments in PN when I have them on ignore? I thought TiG fixed that?
go ahead give it a meta ticket
No, the point is that it is the call of the President of the United States if we are in imminent danger. That is the comment I made. Why is that such a tough concept?
The comment was:
I quoted it EXACTLY how it read. Apparently realizing how absurd it was, you modified it. Nice job.
isn't that dishonest?
1.1.15 still does read that way. And it still is the call of the president. And you still have not disproven it.
Only if it is done
I will leave that to others to say. Perhaps His Eminence will decide.
I am talking about your comment at 1.1.5 as it originally read before you modified it. See my Comment 1.1.7.
So in 1.1.7 it said"It is also irrelevant what the top intelligence officer in the United States said, in writing, that Iran did not restart the attempt toward a nuclear weapon. It is the call of the President."
And in 1.1.5 it says "It is also irrelevant what the top intelligence officer in the United States said, in writing, that Iran did not restart the attempt toward a nuclear weapon. It is the call of the President if there is an imminent threat."
And the difference is? Care to respond to the statement and stop with the diversion?
The original version of your Comment 1.1.5, before you modified it, did NOT state "if there is an imminent threat".
Clearly, you could see the difference, and how absurd the original version of your comment was, or you would not have modified it.
To make it explicit, your original, unmodified comment stated, in effect, that it would be solely the "call" of the President as to whether Iran was restarting an attempt to develop a nuclear weapon, regardless of the facts.
The bottom line is that during Trump 1.0 he was surrounded by mostly level headed adults whose job is solely to make sure every avenue and every possible consequence is addressed and to have a plan for whatever results.
During the Biden Administration, the heritage Foundation and others planned out Operation 2025 and lined up the sycophants, measured military leaders and the GOP for obedience. No one is this Administration appears to have planned for any outcome except the fairy tale that Trump believes. The Military Leadership was first gutted for DEI, then partisan loyalty to the Trump.. We are in a dangerous place. Militarily and financially with lots of wrecked allegiances dotting the globe.
I note that they keep quoting Prof. Tim Snyder weekly if not more. He saw it all coming.
Sad.
Yes, we are. Extreme danger. The only answer is to remain active, outspoken, get out the vote and resist.
You and I both know what a significant figure Timothy Snyder is. He did see it coming. I get his Substack emails regularly.
I didn't know he was on Substack. I have to go find him. I'm part way thru the book you recommended
That's great. I think it's a very important work.
From the link
From Gemini AI
So, what you're saying is only His Eminence determines imminence. Unfortunately, his intellect is de minimis.
No, I said The President of the United Sates of America determines imminence. Feel free to prove I am wrong if you can.
If there is an asteroid within hours of crashing into Earth, and all the security officials say it is an imminent threat, but the President declares it is not imminent, that should stop it.
Again, ridiculous comparison. You are comparing going to war with an asteroid. That is really a stretch. So obviously you can't prove my statement (actually Geminis statement) is wrong
They both have the same end result. Destruction.
You obviously did not understand my comment about the power of the President.
I'm a Gemini. I'm never wrong.
LOL! Yep. Sounds like trmpr logic to me
Asteroid? Nuclear bomb....
both pack a powerful whomp
‘Why Do You Even Have a Job?’
REP. JIMMY GOMEZ: I just want to kind of get a sense. Were they weeks away of achieving a nuclear weapon? Yes or no?
TULSI GABBARD: Congressman, this is a serious matter, and you’ve made some very serious mischaracterizations here.
GOMEZ: Yes or no? Were they weeks away? Yes or no?
GABBARD: And so it would be a disservice to you and the American people with a mere yes or no.
GOMEZ: Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. Were they weeks away or not? The American people need to know if this was an imminent threat or not. If they were weeks away or not. None of this dodging. Were they an imminent threat? Yesterday, you said that only the president, the only person who can determine what is an imminent threat is the president of the United States. Do you stand by that statement?
GABBARD: Yes, I do.
GOMEZ: Director Ratcliffe, do you agree with that assessment, that the president is the only person that can determine if something is an imminent threat or not?
JOHN RATCLIFFE: The president as commander in chief gets to make a decision about what’s an imminent threat. The intelligence community-
GOMEZ: So no. Reclaim my time! Reclaim my time! Reclaim my time!
[Crosstalk]
GOMEZ: The reason why, is that if the president can determine and ignore what you’re doing, why do you guys even have a job? Like why do you even advise him? So you’re saying tomorrow, the president of the United States can say China is an imminent threat and he can take — no matter what the intelligence says — take his own action. OK, let’s go on.
Once again this shows the level of incompetence in this administration
No planning, no evaluations of the unexpected or unintended. No Way Out,
Call the Japanese and thank them for teaching us about treachery and surprise attacks, yep that's the diplomatic thing to do. /s