Opinion - Bad mistake: Tulsi Gabbard just threw Iran a nuclear lifeline
Tulsi Gabbard should check her 'Iran Nuke' Signal group — if such a thing exists or existed. Why? Because Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appears to have entered the group chat and has led her astray.
Testifying Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, President Trump's director of national intelligence said the intelligence community 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.'
Khamenei is undoubtedly thrilled with this.
His regime is in tatters. His so-called 'Axis of Resistance' — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and a host of other militias — has been badly mauled by Israel in the wake of the Oct. 7. attacks.
And yet here is Gabbard, throwing a lifeline to Khamenei's nuclear weapons program and doing so in the most public of ways.
This is a classic case of ignoring the sum of the parts that do indeed add up to the whole — and in this case, the whole is that Iran is aggressively chasing weaponization of its nuclear program to re-establish strategic deterrence.
Gabbard needs to remember that her job is not intelligence gathering. The mission of her office is to lead and support intelligence integration, delivering insights, driving capabilities, and investing in the future.
In that sense — and please excuse the cliché — if it walks like a nuclear duck, quacks like a nuclear duck, then it is a nuclear duck. Gabbard is, wittingly or not, failing to process all of the intelligence collected.
Consider that Iran is rapidly accelerating its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency now estimates as of February 8, Tehran has amassed '274.8 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60 percent.'
Bear in mind that nuclear power plants, hospital experiments, and other common commercial uses of low-enriched uranium only require enrichment levels between 3 percent and 5 percent. The only reason to highly enrich uranium past 5 percent is to begin the process of weaponizing it.
To create a mushroom cloud, 90 percent entriched uranium is required. But it also requires a sufficient mass of enriched uranium to sustain a chain reaction that results in a nuclear implosion.
Last December, Iran Watch estimated that Khamenei's 'nuclear program has reached the point at which, within about one week, [it] might be able to enrich enough uranium for five fission weapons.' Given Iran's ever-increasing centrifuge capacity — the key manufacturing component of enriching uranium — that volume will only exponentially increase.
It is important to emphasize that Iran already has this capability. As Iran Watch noted, Tehran is operating at least '36 cascades of IR-1 centrifuges as well as 30 cascades of more powerful centrifuges (15 IR-2m cascades, 12 IR-4 cascades, and three IR-6 cascades) at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant.'
Iran Watch also reported that Khamenei is operating at least 'six cascades of IR-1 centrifuges and two cascades of IR-6 centrifuges at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and nearly a thousand centrifuges at the Natanz pilot plant, notably the IR-4 and IR-6.'
Significantly, these are just the known nuclear sites in Iran. In October 2024, Israel during its retaliatory strikes on Iran, destroyed the Taleghan 2 nuclear facility — an undeclared Iranian nuclear facility.
Others undoubtedly exist. Israel likely already knows their locations.
Iran is effective in hiding its nuclear weapons program. In February, Fox News Digital reported that 'Iran's chief nuclear development agency, the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, has been operating out two locations previously recognized as space development and launch sites.'
These include space facilities in Shahrud and Semnan. Gabbard surely knew this before she began testifying.
Weaponization not only requires sufficient stockpiles of 90 percent enriched uranium — the equivalent mass of two fifty-pounds bags of dog food is needed for one nuke — but also warheads, ballistic missiles, propulsion fuels and launch pads or vehicles.
These are nuclear red flags that Gabbard cannot overlook.
Gabbard needs to bring Team Trump's policy approach up to speed vis-à-vis Iran's nuclear weapons program. This notion that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon is nonsense — or it is intentional parsing, in the full knowledge that that is exactly what Khamenei is intent upon doing.
Either way, it is deceptive. Iran is pursuing or already building all of the components needed to construct, deliver and launch nuclear weapons. It would be foolish from a national security standpoint to wait until Tehran either tests or launches a nuke before connecting all of these obvious dots.
Even the IAEA is sounding the warning bells. Rafael Grossi, its director, warned about Khamenei's intentions in February when he said, 'Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state enriching to this level, causing me serious concern.'
There are signs that others in the Trump Administration are recognizing the magnitude of this rapidly growing threat. The War Zone reported on Tuesday that 'a significant force of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers looks to be currently wending its way to the [strategically located] Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.'
Earlier, on Sunday while appearing on CBS Face The Nation, Mike Waltz, Trump's national security advisor, warned Iran to 'give [its nuclear weapons program] up or there will be consequences.' But Gabbard said they were not building a nuclear weapon. That said, saying 'don't' did not work for the Biden Administration. It won't work for Team Trump, either.
In all likelihood, Iran will stand down only if militarily forced to do so. Khamenei is playing a deeper and longer-term game. He and his regime know that unless Iran becomes a nuclear power, its ambitions of dominating the Middle East will be a lost cause.
Gabbard had a chance during the Senate committee hearing to send a signal that it is indeed a lost cause, full stop. Instead, inexplicably, she fumbled, becoming the latest person in Washington to give Iran a nuclear weapons lifeline.
Team Trump must reverse course. As we have warned before, we are past midnight in the Gardens of Armageddon and Israel will not wait forever before it acts to mitigate or destroy Khamenei's nuclear weapons program.
Mark Toth writes on national security and foreign policy. Col. (Ret.) Jonathan E. Sweet served 30 years as an Army intelligence officer.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
31 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Senator Says War Powers Resolution Against Trump Will Have GOP Support
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, says that Republican lawmakers in his chamber have expressed support in voting for a War Powers Resolution following President Donald Trump's authorization to strike three Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday. Newsweek has reached out to Kaine's office via email for comment. Why It Matters Trump on Saturday evening announced what he described as a "very successful attack" against three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The president's decision came after Israel and Iran have exchanged consistent strikes since June 13. Israel had urged the U.S. to target Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that Tehran was moving close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons. The strikes have sparked concerns from some Democrats and some Republicans about a wider war breaking out—with some lawmakers accusing the president of violating the U.S. Constitution with the strikes. Kaine's resolution pending in the Senate has been mimicked in the U.S. House of Representatives, where Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California introduced a resolution last Tuesday. What To Know The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities abroad without congressional consent. Kaine told Punchbowl News on Monday that he is privy to Senate GOP support of his resolution, saying that lawmakers have expressed interest in signing off on whether Congress and not just the president should have a say to attack other nations. "I know I will have Republican support. How much is unclear," Kaine said. "The day-to-day events will affect is a very evolving situation." A vote that requires a simple majority for passage is expected to happen before the chamber's July 4 recess, the senator added. Kaine's latest remarks come one day after he told Shannon Bream on Fox News Sunday that Trump's order to strike Iran went beyond traditional protocols outlined in the Constitution and gives him "grave concern." "It's unconstitutional for a president to initiate a war like this without Congress," Kaine said on Sunday. "Every member of Congress needs to vote on this." It harkens back to the politics that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Kaine added, saying the present moment mirrors two decades ago when a Republican president and administration gave "false information" about Iraq's weapons program. Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, speaks at a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on April 2 in Washington, D.C. Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, speaks at a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on April 2 in Washington, People Are Saying Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said in a press release: "It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict." Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said in a statement: "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk. Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation. Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace." Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "I introduced a War Powers Resolution on Tuesday, while Congress was on vacation. We would have had plenty of time to debate and vote on this." What Happens Next? Along with the resolutions introduced by Kaine, and jointly by Massie and Khanna, other lawmakers are also reportedly going to introduce similar war powers legislation. Democratic Representatives Gregory Meeks of New York, Adam Smith of Washington, and Jim Himes of Connecticut—ranking members of the Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence committees, respectively—are drafting their own War Powers resolution, according to Punchbowl. Also, 12 Democrats in the House—all military veterans—sent a letter to the White House on Monday, asserting congressional authority over war powers. In response to the U.S. strikes on Iran, the country's foreign minister said Iran reserves "all options to defend its sovereignty." The U.S. military is preemptively preparing for any attack from Tehran.
USA Today
33 minutes ago
- USA Today
What does TACO mean in reference to Trump? Why the phrase is resurfacing
A four-letter acronym that started as a way to describe President Donald Trump's tariff policies has morphed into a viral social media phrase, much to his ire. Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong coined the term "TACO trade" in May to describe how many investors responded to Trump's whiplash tariff policies. "TACO," an acronym that stands for "Trump always chickens out," has since become a sweeping term criticizing Trump. Social media users have taken to creating memes and artificial intelligence-generated images depicting the phrase. Trump himself hit back at a reporter who asked about the term on May 28, calling it "a nasty question." Here's what to know about the phrase and how it has been reignited in political discourse after the U.S. carried out strikes in Iran. Live updates: What is Iran's next move? World awaits response to U.S. bombing What does TACO mean? Where the phrase comes from TACO stands for "Trump always chickens out." Armstrong coined the term after the Trump administration issued tariffs on imports from worldwide trade partners in early April before reversing course on the policies a week later. "The US administration does not have a very high tolerance for market and economic pressure, and will be quick to back off when tariffs cause pain," Armstrong said in a May 2 article. "This is the Taco theory: Trump Always Chickens Out." In an interview with NPR, Armstrong said he came up with the phrase as a shorthand "so I didn't have to reexplain it every time that it came up." "I just tried to think of a catchy acronym, and TACO happened to be the most kind of amusing one that I could think of," he said. What does Trump think of the TACO acronym? Trump fired back at a reporter asking about the TACO phrase in a White House press conference on May 28. "Oh, I chicken out. Isn't that nice? I've never heard that," Trump said during the exchange, before defending his decisions on tariffs. "Six months ago, this country was stone cold dead. We had a dead country. We had a country that people didn't think it was going survive," Trump said. "And you ask a nasty question like that. It's called negotiation." TACO chatter reignites amid US strikes on Iran After the U.S. military bombed three Iranian nuclear sites on June 21, some supporters have taken to social media to assert that the attack is evidence against the "TACO" theory. Some Trump backers say his follow-through on the attack, which came after he issued warnings to the country, disproves the belief that he "always chickens out." Others have suggested the bombings were in spite of the "TACO" nickname. "Have to wonder, did we bomb Iran because someone called Trump TACO?" one person wrote on X. Actor John Cusack opined on social media that the Iran attack "was a bombing for ego − to get back at people calling him weak." Contributing: Joey Garrison, USA TODAY Melina Khan is a national trending reporter for USA TODAY. She can be reached at
Business Insider
36 minutes ago
- Business Insider
'I'm watching!' Trump demands oil prices stay down after US strikes on Iran
President Donald Trump does not want to see oil prices rise in the wake of the US attack on Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend. Following the US attack on three Iranian nuclear sites, investors are waiting and watching as the potential for retribution raises uncertainty. While the US market's reaction has been muted so far, Iran has floated the possibility of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping port for the oil industry. Such a move would disrupt global oil flows, throttling supply and likely raising prices, but President Trump took to Truth Social on Monday to demand that oil prices do not move higher after the attacks. "EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I'M WATCHING!" It wasn't clear who the president was addressing, but he added that raising oil prices would be "playing into the hands of the enemy." In a follow-up post, Trump used the moment to promote his "drill baby drill" mantra, which was part of his message while on the campaign trail last year. "Since day one, President Trump has championed domestic energy production to strengthen American economic security, and he continues to urge the administration to 'DRILL, BABY' DRILL' and keep prices low. As the President said, producers must keep oil prices down or risk playing into the hands of the enemy," White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, told Business Insider. A senior administration official added that the administration's goal is to "repair and restore" the US strategic petroleum reserve. "We currently are not seeing interruptions to oil flows, but are continuing to monitor the situation closely and coordinate with key oil-producing partners," the official said. While Trump has pushed for greater US oil production, there has been some pushback from the producers themselves. In a recent survey, oil and gas executives expressed frustration with the agenda, describing " drill baby drill" as being "nothing short of a myth." The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas's survey of the industry in March 2025 showed that producers aren't keen on dramatically lowering the price of oil, with one respondent stating that "At $50-per-barrel oil, we will see U.S. oil production start to decline immediately and likely significantly." Higher crude prices are a top concern for markets as investors eye the possible knock-on effects of America's entry into the Israel-Iran conflict. On Monday, JPMorgan analysts said that the market is pricing in about a one-in-five chance that oil prices could shoot up by 75%. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs said that the conflict is one reason it hasn't lowered its recession forecast.
