Atlantic: Trump did not listen to intelligence data before launching the operation in Iran
American intelligence knew in advance that Iran did not have nuclear weapons, and a US strike would provoke a global crisis and a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the Atlantic writes. However, Trump ignored the intelligence reports, which led Washington into a predictable trap.
Shane Harris
The long and costly mess was quite predictable. But Trump started the war anyway.
In 2005, a committee of lawmakers and security experts from both parties concluded that intelligence was "completely wrong in almost all pre-war judgments about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction." In particular, American spies reported to President George W. Bush that Saddam Hussein had established a nuclear weapons program and that Iraq possessed biological weapons and mobile production facilities, as well as extensive chemical weapons stockpiles. These alleged facts laid the foundation for the American invasion and the subsequent eight-year occupation. "When the war ended, all this was refuted," the commission concluded. "It was a major intelligence failure."
If a similar group of experts had studied and assessed the preparations for the current war in Iran, their conclusion would be something like this:
"Intelligence was accurate and consistent in its pre-war judgments about Iran's capabilities and intentions to attack the United States and its allies. Contrary to what President Trump justified his decision, intelligence showed that the Iranian regime was not preparing to use nuclear weapons; that it did not have ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States; and that in response to a military attack, Tehran was likely to strike neighboring countries in the Persian Gulf and try to block the Strait of Hormuz, triggering a global the economic crisis. All this was known before the war and was put on the table by President Trump. The intelligence worked as expected."
Trump's "tour", as he deigned to call the largest US military operation in his entire second term, turned into a series of nightmares. Iran now controls the strait, where it plans to charge ships for passage, and can regulate global flows of oil, gas, fertilizers, and chemicals vital to production. Trump claims to have carried out regime change in the Islamic Republic, but power remains in the hands of the "hawks," whose repression of their own people will only worsen after they have survived the beheading strike of the world's only superpower. And neighboring Gulf states, whose livelihoods depend directly on energy exports and security for tourism, life, and work, will hoard weapons and reconsider their strategic partnership with the United States.
Two decades ago, the president used information that turned out to be incorrect, followed by disaster. Today, the president has ignored the correct estimates, and the predictable is happening. It turns out that intelligence doesn't work either, but not in the way we're used to.
"Your successes are invisible, but your failures are being trumpeted at the top of your voice," President John F. Kennedy remarked in a speech to CIA staff at headquarters in Langley, Virginia, in 1961. Since then, intelligence officers have recalled this truism with annoyance whenever they are blamed for a major failure. The familiar plot of intelligence failure looks like this: analysts did not draw the proper conclusions, operatives went along with sources who exaggerate or outright lie, and politicians distorted ambiguous information to bring it in line with the desired outcome. This is exactly what happened a few months before the Iraq War.
However, the preparation for Operation Epic Fury breaks the usual pattern. The spies said everything correctly, but the president went against them. The failure of intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction led to a fundamental turning point designed to prevent such mistakes from happening again. In many ways, these reforms have worked. But they did not take into account the personality of the decision-maker. And he was so turned on by past military successes that he firmly believed that under his inspired and, perhaps, inspired by God, command, the US armed forces simply could not stumble.
Some allies criticized Trump for not giving the public any arguments about the expediency of war, unlike the Bush administration. But if he had correctly presented the available intelligence, all the facts would have testified against an attack on Iran — at least until the diplomatic possibilities were exhausted. Perhaps that is why the president first ignored and then distorted everything said by his advisers.
"The regime already had missiles capable of hitting Europe and our bases, both in the region and beyond, and soon it would have missiles that would reach our beautiful America," Trump said before the Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House on March 2. But the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that Iran would be able to create a missile capable of hitting U.S. territory only by 2035 — and only if Tehran was determined to do so, and analysts were not sure about that. A few weeks later, in testimony before Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence (and she is by no means an apolitical adviser to the president), said that Iran had missile technology that "could be used to develop a militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile by 2035" — but did not say that it had already done so.. It is extremely important to understand this chronology well, because in order to hit the United States with the most advanced weapons, Iran needs to place a nuclear warhead on an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Trump claimed that this threat was only a few years away. "Iran was going to take over the entire Middle East. They were going to destroy Israel with their nuclear weapons," he told reporters in the Oval Office on March 16. In a flattering interpretation, it would sound like this: Trump was afraid that Iran would want to use nuclear weapons. But desire or even intention is not equal to opportunity.
It is true that Iran possesses uranium, which, after further enrichment, can be used to create nuclear weapons. But at the end of June, American bombers struck Iran's nuclear facilities, and Tehran has so far "made no attempt to restore its uranium enrichment capacity," Gabbard said in written testimony to Congress. "The entrances to the bombed underground structures are covered with rubble and cement," she added. This is not like the actions of a country that is about to use nuclear weapons.
Trump has not only misinterpreted intelligence about Iran's military potential. He was amazed at the regime's response to the American and Israeli bombings, in particular the decision to close the Strait of Hormuz and launch massive missile and drone strikes against neighbors in the Persian Gulf. But the president's advisers warned that this would surely happen. They knew that the blockade of the most important shipping artery would allow Iran to strangle the global economy. This is such a simple maneuver that the Pentagon itself has long considered it in its military plans. When Trump's military advisers informed him of this possibility, he brushed them off. Iran will surely capitulate before it tries to block the strait, he said, and in any case, the US military will figure it out, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Trump initially threatened to bomb Iran if it did not lift the blockade, but now Trump has started talking about how this task should fall on the shoulders of the allies. "The United States almost does not import oil through the Strait of Hormuz and is going to in the future," Trump said in his address to the nation on Wednesday. "There's no need for that." After his statement, oil prices jumped.
Trump also said that no one warned him that Iran could attack Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and other Gulf countries — even though these close U.S. allies host key military bases. "They shouldn't have attacked these countries in the Middle East,— Trump said during an event at the White House on March 16. — No one counted on it. We were shocked."
How could this happen? In 2025, American intelligence publicly stated that "Iran's large non-nuclear armed forces are capable of causing significant damage to the enemy, hitting targets in the region and disrupting navigation, especially energy supplies, through the Strait of Hormuz." None other than Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, perhaps the main proponent of the war throughout the administration, acknowledged that Iran's retaliatory actions at the regional level did not come as a surprise. "I can't say that we expected them to react that way, but we knew it was possible," he said at a press conference on March 10.
Before the war, officials from the two Arab countries told Trump and his top aides that they feared Iran's retaliatory actions that would stop oil supplies, inflate prices and provoke a global economic crisis, Politico magazine reported. In early February, when the US warships were just moving into position, I met with several senior officials of the Qatari government. The number one topic was the risk of Iran's retaliatory actions. One official noted the self-evident: a war could deprive Qatar of the ability to produce and supply liquefied natural gas, which serves as the backbone of its economy. Actually, that's exactly what happened.
After the staff exercises, one of the United States' closest intelligence-sharing partners in Europe concluded that a major American attack would force Iran to launch a counter strike against the Persian Gulf countries and block the strait, a government official from that country recently told me on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic. According to him, the Americans were aware of these findings, and Trump's surprise threw him into disbelief.
Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were also puzzled and angry when Gabbard appeared before them last month. "There seems to be some discrepancy between what the intelligence community has been reporting over the years and how the president is talking about it," said Angus King, an independent senator from Maine. "So my question is: did you tell him about this at all?"
Gabbard avoided a direct answer. But she said the agencies she oversees had provided Trump with "intelligence related to the operation in Iran previously and on an ongoing basis." CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who also attended the hearing, said he had held "dozens of briefings with the president," including several weeks before the war. He stressed that "Iran had specific plans to strike energy facilities of interest to the United States throughout the region." Gabbard supported him, noting that "intelligence has long believed that Iran is likely to use the Strait of Hormuz as a lever of pressure."
The senators also wanted to understand why one of Gabbard's top deputies quit because of the president's decision to start a war. "Iran posed no immediate threat to our country," Joe Kent, whom Trump appointed head of the National Counterterrorism Center, wrote in a resignation letter. These are very revealing words from an official who had direct access to the most classified intelligence in the US government. Ratcliffe told the committee that he disagreed with Kent and that Iran was still seeking to develop nuclear weapons. But this is not the same as having it and preparing to use it — which, according to Trump, Iran was allegedly doing.
Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat from Georgia, read aloud a quote from a White House statement made the day after the start of the war: Trump ordered a "military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime." He asked Gabbard: does intelligence consider this threat really imminent?
Here, the director of intelligence, who, when she was a member of Congress, was an ardent opponent of the war, made an awkward mistake. She replied to Ossoff that the president is "the only one who can decide what constitutes an immediate threat and what does not," and that this is not the responsibility of her department. In fact, it comes in — and how else. But even leaving aside Gabbard's evasive characterization, she noted that "Iran has maintained its intention to restore and increase its uranium enrichment capabilities." What she didn't mention, again, was that intent and imminent threat are not the same thing.
Many presidents ignored the warnings and forecasts of their intelligence advisers — or simply did not bother to listen to them. When a stolen Cessna crashed on the South Lawn of the White House in 1994, some joked that a CIA representative was flying in it, desperately trying to get a face-to-face meeting with President Bill Clinton. At the other end of the spectrum, we'll find George W. Bush. He was so obsessed with the details of counterterrorism operations that he personally monitored Al-Qaeda militants who were being hunted by the CIA.
Trump's relationship with intelligence is much more strained than that of any of his predecessors. As a presidential candidate, he criticized intelligence for misjudging weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Having settled in the White House, he turned against the "deep state", which allegedly tried to remove him for a decade. Trump has long said that he trusts his intuition, so he will understand that the war in Iran is over. So, he recently said in an interview: "I'll know about it when I feel it in my gut."
U.S. intelligence is not designed or equipped to restrain a president who is guided by impulses, emotions, and his own feelings. She can only provide him with information. When the president ignores what he has said or distorts it, it is purely his fault.
*A terrorist organization banned in Russia
