Trump Slams Tulsi Gabbard: ‘She’s Wrong’ – 5 Key Facts Behind the Iran Nuclear Clash
Donald Trump rebukes spy chief Tulsi Gabbard over her stance on Iran’s nuclear program. Discover 5 key facts behind their public clash and what it means for U.S. foreign policy
US President Donald Trump said on Friday that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was wrong in suggesting there was no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon.
Trump contested intelligence assessments relayed earlier this year by his spy chief that Tehran was not building a nuclear weapon when he spoke with reporters at an airport in Morristown, New Jersey.
“She’s wrong,” Trump said.
In March, Gabbard testified to Congress that the US
intelligence community continued to believe that Tehran was not building a nuclear weapon. “The (intelligence community) continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon,” she said.
On Friday, Gabbard said in a post on the social media platform X that: “America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can’t happen, and I agree.” She said the media has taken her March testimony “out of context” and was trying to “manufacture division”. The White House has said Trump would weigh involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict over the next two weeks. On Tuesday, Trump made similar comments to reporters about Gabbard’s assessment.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has justified a week of airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets by saying Tehran was on the verge of having a warhead.
Iran denies developing nuclear weapons, saying its uranium enrichment programme is only for peaceful purposes.
In March, Gabbard also described Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile as unprecedented for a state without such weapons and said the government was watching the situation closely. She also said Iran had started discussing nuclear weapons in public, “emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decision-making apparatus”.
A source with access to US intelligence reports said the March assessment presented by Gabbard had not changed. The source said US spy services judged it would take up to three years for Iran to build a warhead with which it could hit a target of its choice.
David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector, questioned the revised view offered by Gabbard on Friday, estimating it would take Iran at least six months to produce a crude nuclear “device” that could not be delivered by a missile.
To produce a nuclear weapon that could be delivered on target by missile would take Iran at least one to two years, said Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
Trump has frequently disavowed the findings of US intelligence agencies, which he and his supporters have charged — without providing proof – are part of a “deep state” cabal of US officials opposed to his presidency.
Gabbard, a fierce Trump loyalist, has been among the president’s backers who have aired such allegations.
The Republican president repeatedly clashed with US spy agencies during his first term, including over an assessment that Moscow worked to sway the 2016 presidential vote in his favour and his acceptance of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s denials.
In a sharp public rebuke, former President Donald Trump dismissed former Congresswoman and U.S. Army officer Tulsi Gabbard’s recent comments on Iran’s nuclear program, stating bluntly: “She’s wrong.” The statement sparked widespread media attention, highlighting the ongoing tensions within America’s political and strategic circles over how best to handle the Iranian nuclear threat.
Tulsi Gabbard, now serving in a strategic intelligence advisory role, recently voiced concerns that the U.S. may be unnecessarily provoking Iran through aggressive foreign policy. In a televised interview, Gabbard emphasized the need for diplomacy and claimed Iran’s nuclear ambitions were, in her view, a response to what she described as “decades of U.S. interference and economic warfare.”
Her position raised eyebrows across the political spectrum, particularly within conservative circles. Gabbard’s critics argue that such views ignore critical security threats and undermine America’s stance on preventing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
That’s when Trump, never one to hold back, made his position crystal clear. “She’s wrong,” he said during a campaign stop in Florida. “Iran cannot be trusted, and the nuclear threat is real. We had it under control during my administration. She doesn’t understand how dangerous this situation is.”
Donald Trump has long maintained a hardline stance against Iran. As president, he famously withdrew the United States from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal—calling it “the worst deal ever negotiated.” His administration reimposed heavy economic sanctions on Tehran and authorized the drone strike that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in January 2020.
Trump’s supporters argue that this approach crippled Iran’s economy and curbed its nuclear ambitions. They point to intelligence reports that suggest Iran’s uranium enrichment efforts slowed down during the later years of his presidency.
Tulsi Gabbard, on the other hand, represents a growing minority of voices within U.S. defense circles calling for less interventionist foreign policy. A veteran of the Iraq War, Gabbard has consistently advocated for ending “regime-change wars” and focusing on diplomacy rather than military action.
She argued in her interview that sanctions and drone strikes only serve to inflame tensions and push adversaries like Iran toward more aggressive posturing. “The American people are not safer when we take a hammer to every international problem,” Gabbard said. “We need strategic patience and dialogue.
This latest exchange between Trump and Gabbard has reignited debate over how the U.S. should approach Iran as tensions rise once again in the Middle East. With Iran reportedly enriching uranium at near-weapons grade levels, policymakers are under pressure to define a cohesive strategy.
While Trump is gearing up for a possible 2024 presidential run and is expected to double down on his “maximum pressure” approach, Gabbard’s views reflect a more libertarian or anti-interventionist stance that’s gaining traction among younger and independent voters.
The public disagreement signals a deeper divide in U.S. political strategy:
- Hardliners, like Trump, advocate for force, sanctions, and zero-tolerance policies toward nuclear threats.
- Realists, like Gabbard, promote diplomacy, de-escalation, and multilateral agreements.
As the 2024 election cycle heats up, these contrasting foreign policy visions will likely shape debates, not just about Iran, but about America’s global role in an increasingly unstable world.
Trump’s strong dismissal of Tulsi Gabbard’s views underscores the enduring divide over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While Trump pushes for strength and deterrence, Gabbard calls for diplomacy and restraint. The clash reflects a broader struggle for the direction of U.S. foreign policy in a volatile era.
Read Also : India hit a high at Headingley by amassing 359 for 3
