According to a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report, President Donald Trump reportedly disregarded warnings from intelligence officials, military leaders, and then-Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, about the potential consequences of engaging in war with Iran.
Just days prior to launching Operation Epic Fury on February 28, Trump supposedly asked Gabbard if the U.S. should consider going to war with Iran. Gabbard, who stepped down in May, cautioned against it, referencing insights from the intelligence community.
She warned Trump that the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, could likely lead to a more ideologically rigid regime, increasing its desire to obtain nuclear weapons. Gabbard indicated that Iran might react by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and attacking U.S. forces and allies in the region.
In hindsight, Gabbard’s warnings seem to have been quite accurate. The Washington Post reported in July, citing U.S. officials and analysts, that Iran’s regime had grown “more entrenched and hard-line,” now led by a new breed of non-civilian leaders.
Raz Zimmt from the Institute for National Security Studies in Israel observed that while Iran might appear economically weaker due to a series of strikes, tighter sanctions, and a U.S. blockade, the reality is we are looking at a “new, bolder, self-confident Iran.”
Other analysts noted that Trump’s approach to warfare and his threats to decimate Iran have likely fortified the hard-liners’ position within the country.
Since the conflict began, Iran has limited access through the Strait of Hormuz, leading to disturbances in global energy markets and significant rises in the prices of oil, gas, and diesel in the U.S. Despite Trump asserting that the main route through this critical passage has been cleared of all mines, maritime security experts caution that the situation remains tense.
The Iranian military operations have reportedly targeted numerous U.S. military and intelligence sites across several Middle Eastern countries, causing substantial damage expected to cost billions to repair.
Gabbard has faced considerable backlash from Republican critics, particularly those in the hawkish faction and within the broader political sphere in Washington, D.C.
Before her confirmation in 2025, the editorial board of National Review condemned Gabbard as an “atrocious nominee” whose judgment had been profoundly lacking.
Moreover, The Guardian previously reported that many within the D.C. foreign policy and intelligence communities regarded Gabbard as “dangerous,” expressing concerns over her tendencies towards conspiracy theories and aligning with autocratic leaders.
Just two weeks into the war, conservative radio host Erick Erickson accused Gabbard and other non-interventionists in the administration of trying to undermine Trump. He argued that the U.S. had stirred up trouble and needed to fully confront it rather than considering a quick resolution.
Gabbard continued to attract criticism, even from within the Trump administration, particularly after she released a video cautioning about the risks of nuclear conflict while Trump was deliberating on whether to support Israeli strikes against Iran. In her video, she criticized the “political elite and warmongers” for escalating tensions between nuclear nations.
A senior official in the Trump administration remarked at the time that the president saw the video as a subtle attempt to influence government decisions.
Ultimately, the U.S. targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan on June 21, 2025, in an operation labeled “Operation Midnight Hammer.”
While the official indicated that Trump didn’t harbor personal animosity towards Gabbard, the video apparently did not win her any favors with the president, especially since he tends to react unfavorably to deviations from his messaging.
Many perceived her video as an effort to counter the administration’s stance, which the official confirmed was both noticed and not appreciated by Trump.
