US intelligence chief says Iran not rebuilding nuclear programme, undercutting Donald Trump’s war rationale

US intelligence has concluded that Iran has not tried to rebuild the nuclear enrichment capacity destroyed in last year’s US and Israeli strikes, a finding that cuts against one of President Donald Trump’s central claims for the current war, according to testimony delivered to Congress on Wednesday.Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in prepared testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee that there had been “no efforts” by Tehran to restore its enrichment capability after the June 2025 US attack, known as Operation Midnight Hammer.

Gabbard’s written testimony contradicts Trump’s core claim

In her prepared remarks, Gabbard said, “As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated.”“There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability,” she added, according to news agency AFP.That assessment is significant because Trump has repeatedly argued that he ordered the latest joint US-Israeli military campaign against Iran on February 28 because Tehran posed an “imminent threat” and was only weeks away from obtaining a nuclear bomb.The UN nuclear watchdog and many independent observers have not backed the claim that Iran was on the verge of building a bomb. The report also said Iran had been in talks with Trump’s envoys on a possible deal in the days before the attack.

Gabbard avoids repeating the assessment in open hearing

Even though the finding was included in her written testimony, Gabbard did not repeat it in her public remarks before cameras.When a Democratic senator pressed her on the issue, Gabbard said she had not had enough time to read the full testimony during the hearing, but she did not dispute the written assessment.That only added to the tension surrounding her appearance, with Democrats trying to pin down whether the intelligence community actually supports the administration’s public case for war.Gabbard repeatedly deflected questions about what intelligence she had given Trump, frustrating Democratic senators who used the annual worldwide threats hearing to probe the basis for the widening Middle East conflict.When asked by Senator Mark Warner whether she had warned Trump that Iran might shut the Strait of Hormuz if attacked, Gabbard declined to discuss internal advice.“I have not and won’t divulge internal conversations. I will say that those of us within the intelligence community continue to provide the president with all of the best objective intelligence available to inform his decisions,” she said, as quoted by news agency AP.

Joe Kent resignation deepens scrutiny of White House’s Iran threat claims

Joe Kent’s resignation had already sharpened questions around the administration’s war rationale. Kent stepped down on Tuesday as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, saying he could not “in good conscience” support the ongoing war in Iran and arguing that Tehran posed “no imminent threat” to the United States. Trump responded angrily, saying Kent was “very weak on security” and that “it’s a good thing he’s out.” The president also doubled down on his position that Iran was a serious danger, saying, “Iran was a threat—every country realized that,” and adding that officials who did not believe Iran posed a threat were not people “we want” in the administration. The White House has since repeatedly rejected Kent’s claim, insisting Trump had “strong and compelling evidence” that Iran was preparing to strike first.

CIA chief says Tehran negotiated in bad faith

While Gabbard’s written testimony cast doubt on the argument that Iran was racing to rebuild its nuclear programme, CIA Director John Ratcliffe took a harder line on Tehran’s intentions.Ratcliffe told senators that Iran had not been serious in its diplomacy with Washington before the war.“It was very clear that Iran, while they were talking, they had no intentions of following through,” Ratcliffe said.Ratcliffe rejected the assessment of former National Counterterrorism Center chief Joe Kent, who resigned this week and said Iran did not pose an imminent threat.“The intelligence reflects the contrary,” Ratcliffe told lawmakers.

Democrats turn up pressure over war justification

The hearing quickly became a major test for the administration’s case for war.Democratic Senator Michael Bennet accused Trump of abandoning his own anti-interventionist message.“President Trump said, we are not the policemen of the world. He ran on that,” Bennet said.“Now he’s turned us into the world’s policeman, into its jury, into its judge, into its executioner,” he added.Democrats also tried to use the hearing to press officials on wider consequences of the war, including the risk that Iran could strike Gulf countries or disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for oil and gas shipments.The hearing comes amid wider scrutiny of the administration’s conduct of the war, including reported concerns over an investigation into a US missile strike that allegedly hit an elementary school in Iran and killed more than 165 people, with the White House saying the incident is under review.

Gabbard says Iranian regime still intact, though weakened

Despite the damage caused by weeks of attacks, Gabbard said the Iranian state remains in place.She told senators that the US intelligence community believes the regime is “intact but largely degraded due to attacks on its leadership and military capabilities.”Her remarks came even as she described the cumulative effect of the campaign as severe. The war has included the killing of Iran’s longtime supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.Gabbard warned that if the current regime survives, it will probably try over time to restore its military strength.“If a hostile regime survives, it will likely seek to begin a years-long effort to rebuild its military, missiles and UAV forces,” she said.

Broader global threats: Russia, Ukraine and China

Beyond Iran, Gabbard used the hearing to lay out the intelligence community’s wider threat picture.She said Russia still holds the advantage in its four-year war in Ukraine.“US intelligence assesses that Russia has maintained the upper hand in the war against Ukraine,” Gabbard said.She added that while US-led peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv are continuing, Russia is likely to keep fighting a slow war until a deal is reached.Gabbard also warned of the danger of an “escalatory spiral” in Ukraine or elsewhere that could potentially lead to nuclear weapons use.On China, she said Beijing is rapidly modernising its military with the long-term goal of being able to seize Taiwan, but the intelligence community believes China would still prefer to create conditions for eventual “peaceful reunification” without a war.

(Image via Getty: Shedeur Sanders, Deion Sanders, Karrueche Tran)

Deion “Coach Prime” Sanders has never been one to shy away from the spotlight, but his latest viral video alongside actress Karrueche Tran has the internet divided. While some see a beautiful story of support following his 2025 health scares, a loud segment of the comment section is calling a different play: they think it’s all about the money.

Deion Sanders’ tender moment with Karrueche Tran sparks backlash over age gap and net worth

The video in question shows a tender, lighthearted exchange between the 58-year-old Hall of Famer and the 37-year-old Claws actress. Sanders, who has been vocal about his appreciation for Tran, recently called her a “good woman” who has brought “peace” to his life.However, the comment section under the post was less than convinced. Users didn’t hold back, with many pointing to the age gap and Sanders’ massive net worth as the primary motivators.“She waiting on that life ins policy and will thats all,” wrote one user while another chimed in, “Prime you my guy but she makes u look old big dawg. This is one of those she there for the money moments.”The skepticism stems from what some call “caretaker vibes,” suggesting that the relationship feels more like a nurse-patient dynamic than a romantic one. “It’s giving care taker,” noted by one, a sentiment echoed by others who feel Tran is simply putting in the time for a future payout.Despite the “gold digger” narrative, a large portion of the fanbase is rushing to Karrueche’s defense. They point out that she didn’t just show up for the glamorous parts of Coach Prime’s life; she was there for the 16 surgeries and the terrifying bladder cancer battle in 2025.Another one noted, “Seeing Coach Prime find this kind of peace after the health scares of 2025 is everything. Karrueche was literally in the trenches with him during his surgery and recovery.” This “ride-or-die” energy is, for many, proof that the connection is genuine. Sanders himself admitted he gave her an “out” when things got medically difficult, but she refused to leave his side.Whether it’s “Relationship Wellness” or a strategic “investment,” the pair seems unbothered by the noise. Between meeting parents over the holidays and surviving a grueling year of health crises, they appear to be moving at their own pace.As user Michele Romero put it, there’s “nothing like sitting back in the breeze listening to your ol’ cat daddy spit knowledge.”

On the war’s 19th day, the numbers still flatter the US and Israel. More Iranian officials are dead. More launchers are wrecked. More command nodes have been hit. Israel says it has penetrated deep into Iran’s security structure and is now going after the machinery that keeps the Islamic Republic in power at home as well as abroad. From the air, it looks like the operation “Epic Fury” is going on in “cruise control” mode.Driving the newsAnd yet wars have a way of humiliating arithmetic.The war is no longer just a US-Israeli air campaign against Iran. It is now a broader regional confrontation touching Lebanon, the Gulf, global shipping and energy markets.That matters because the core question has shifted. The issue is no longer whether the US and Israel have inflicted severe damage. They plainly have. The question now is whether President Donald Trump can turn that military dominance into a political outcome that looks like victory – or whether Iran is succeeding in making the war longer, wider and more costly than Trump expected.

Why it mattersOn the battlefield, Trump has a case. Iran’s top leadership, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was obliterated on Day 1. Since then, US-Israeli forces have killed many other important political and military figures too. Israel and the US have degraded Iranian military infrastructure, targeted the internal security forces that suppress dissent, and pushed Tehran onto the defensive.But wars are not scored only by body counts, destroyed launchers or command bunkers. They are also scored by endurance, economic pain, alliance cohesion and the ability to shape the terms of peace.That is where Trump’s position looks shakier.Reuters reported that the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed, that oil prices are up around 45% since the war began on February 28, and that Gulf Arab states have been hit by more than 2,000 missile and drone attacks on US diplomatic missions, military bases, oil infrastructure, ports, airports and residential buildings. Reuters also cited the International Energy Agency saying the conflict has caused the worst oil crisis since the 1970s. Global airlines, Reuters reported, have warned of soaring fuel costs, higher fares and route cuts.Those are not side effects. They are central to Iran’s strategy.According to an FT analysis by Emile Hokayem, Iran “has taken a beating” but still retains three major advantages: “geography, time and asymmetry.” The FT’s argument is that Tehran does not need to win conventionally. It only needs to impose enough cost on everyone else to turn apparent military success into strategic ambiguity.That is the danger for Trump. He may be winning the opening phase of the war while losing the ability to define its ending.Between the linesPolitico reported that Trump has been enraged by the refusal of many allies to join the effort to restore shipping through Hormuz. After publicly pressing allies for help, he swung back to insisting he never needed them in the first place. “Because of the fact that we have had such Military Success, we no longer ‘need,’ or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance – WE NEVER DID!” he wrote on Truth Social, “WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!”That rhetorical reversal matters. It suggests Trump is confronting one of the central limits of his Iran campaign: the US can dominate the skies and still struggle to assemble a coalition for the consequences.Politico reported that Germany’s defense minister said, “We did not start this war,” while Luxembourg’s deputy prime minister described Trump’s push for European help as “blackmail.” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the UK “will not be drawn into a wider war,” according to Politico. Sen Lindsey Graham, after speaking with Trump, wrote on X that he had “never heard him so angry in my life.”Trump’s problem is not only Iran. It is also the optics of isolation. If Washington cannot persuade allies to share the burden, the war starts to look less like a coalition campaign and more like a unilateral gamble with global costs.The big pictureThe most persuasive argument that the war may be backfiring on Trump comes from Foreign Affairs, where Nate Swanson wrote that “Trump likely wants to declare victory soon,” but “he cannot force surrender on a government that refuses it.” In Swanson’s telling, the war’s first phase has badly damaged Iran, but the second phase may still favor Tehran because the regime has incentives and enough residual capability to sustain a war of attrition.That is the strategic paradox. Trump and Netanyahu may have destroyed much of Iran’s immediate capacity. But unless they can force capitulation, install a new deterrent order or engineer a stable ceasefire, Iran can still shape the peace by refusing to lose on Washington’s timetable.Swanson’s central point in Foreign Affairs is that Tehran does not need daily military success. It only needs to keep regional partners, global markets and the American public nervous. A few drone attacks on tankers, enough missile strikes to keep Gulf states on edge, and enough disruption in Hormuz to keep oil elevated may be sufficient to turn Trump’s “little excursion” into a politically draining war with no clean off-ramp.The FT makes a similar case from a more operational angle. Hokayem argues that “good strategy is the alignment of ends and means,” and by that standard, “the Iranians haven’t done badly.” Tehran, in the FT’s view, has sensibly prioritized vulnerable regional targets and energy chokepoints over trying to break Israel directly. For Iran, success is not conquering territory. It is keeping everyone else off balance.There is another way the war may be backfiring. In Foreign Affairs, Akbar Ganji argued that the assassination of Ali Khamenei and wartime pressure from the US and Israel may have solved Iran’s succession crisis in favor of Mojtaba Khamenei. Ganji wrote that Trump’s interventions and Israeli threats made Mojtaba “the only viable option for regime survival.” In other words, a campaign partly justified as a blow against the regime may also have hardened it.Zoom inIsrael’s hope, according to a New York Times report by Adam Rasgon, Ronen Bergman and David M Halbfinger, is that strikes on the Basij, the Ministry of Intelligence and other coercive institutions can weaken the regime enough to open space for a popular uprising.That is one of the biggest unresolved bets in this war.The New York Times reported that some former Israeli officials think the strategy is unrealistic because Iran’s internal security services remain deeply entrenched. Vali Nasr told the Times, “There’s enormous hatred of the Islamic republic,” but also “considerable hatred of the United States and Israel and considerable worry about the future of the country itself.”That gets to the central political reality inside Iran. Many Iranians may despise the regime and still refuse to rise up while under foreign bombardment. National humiliation can unify even fractured societies. War can suppress dissent as effectively as repression can.If that is true, then the regime-change theory behind part of the Israeli and US strategy is weak. And if regime change is not coming, Trump is left with a narrower set of choices: keep bombing, negotiate a cease-fire, or accept a murky partial victory.What next: Trump now faces a scoreboard that cuts in two directionsOn one side, the US and Israel are clearly ahead militarily. Iran’s leadership has been decapitated. Its security apparatus has taken severe hits. Its missile operations are under pressure. Its proxies are being pulled into a fight from a position of weakness, not strength.On the other side, Iran may still be doing enough to deny Trump the one outcome he most wants: a quick, unmistakable victory that reinforces deterrence, calms markets and proves his judgment.So, who is winning so far?In an opinion piece for the Greek newspaper eKathimerini, Endy Zemenides aptly described Operation Epic Fury as an “Epic Failure.”The honest answer is this: Trump is winning the war’s first chapter. Iran may still be writing the ending.That is why the war is not clearly backfiring on Trump in military terms. But in strategic, diplomatic and economic terms, the warning lights are flashing. If the conflict drags on, keeps oil high, leaves Hormuz contested and shows Trump unable to rally allies or force Tehran to fold, the question will stop being whether the war is backfiring.It will be how much.(With inputs from agencies)