US intelligence chief says Iran’s regime ‘intact’ but ‘degraded’
US Intelligence Chief Says Iran’s Regime ‘Intact’ but ‘Degraded’
On Wednesday, the United States’ leading intelligence figure claimed the Iranian regime remains ‘intact’ despite being ‘largely degraded.’ Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and other top Trump administration officials spent over two hours testifying before a congressional committee about global security risks. This was the first public intelligence briefing since the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz began in late February. The session occurred just a day after a senior counterterrorism leader stepped down, stating Iran had not presented an immediate danger to the country.
Gabbard, who oversees the nation’s intelligence coordination, emphasized that the US had anticipated challenges in the Strait of Hormuz, a key maritime route. ‘The intelligence community assesses the regime in Iran appears to be intact, but largely degraded due to attacks on its leadership and military capabilities,’ she stated. During the hearing, Gabbard faced repeated questions from Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, about whether she viewed Iran as an imminent threat. She responded that only the president could determine this, asserting, ‘The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.’
“The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.”
Resignation and Assessments
Joe Kent, who served as director of the national counterterrorism center, resigned on Tuesday, expressing in a public letter that Iran posed ‘no imminent threat’ to the US. He criticized the decision to launch military strikes. In contrast, CIA Director John Ratcliffe disagreed with Kent’s assessment, stating, ‘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.’
Gabbard highlighted that US and Israeli strikes in the Middle East had ‘largely destroyed’ Iran’s military capabilities. She also noted the intelligence community’s belief that Iran was recovering from damage to its nuclear facilities during the 12-Day War. ‘Iran was trying to recover from the severe damage to its nuclear infrastructure sustained during the 12-Day War and continued to refuse to comply with its nuclear obligations,’ she added.
Strategic Context and Criticisms
The US and Israel launched a 12-day attack campaign in June 2025, targeting Iran’s nuclear program. Gabbard had previously written that these strikes ‘obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear enrichment efforts, with the nation making ‘no efforts’ to reconstruct them. However, she did not vocalize this during the hearing. When Democratic Senator Mark Warner pointed out the omission, Gabbard explained she trimmed her remarks due to length constraints.
‘So you chose to omit the parts that contradict the president,’ Warner replied, referencing Trump’s justification for the war as a response to Iran’s nuclear weapon development. Lawmakers also inquired about the extent of intelligence involvement in Trump’s decision to strike. Senator Angus King, an Independent from Maine, asked if officials were ‘in the room’ when the final choice was made. Ratcliffe estimated he participated in ‘dozens and dozens’ of meetings with the president but could not confirm if a specific decision was reached during those sessions.
“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.”
King further questioned if intelligence teams had alerted Trump to Iran’s potential to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz during hostilities. Gabbard confirmed that the intelligence community had long believed Iran would ‘likely hold the Strait of Hormuz,’ prompting the defense department to implement ‘pre-emptive planning measures’ as a result. Ratcliffe noted the president receives continuous intelligence briefings and that the Pentagon prepared for possible Iranian attacks on US energy sites in the region.