Tulsi Gabbard: Iran nuclear sites destroyed, rebuilding years.
Gabbard asserted that the action was necessary to neutralize a growing threat and praised the military’s precision. She also criticized mainstream media outlets, accusing them of spreading misinformation and using leaked intelligence to undermine both Trump and the armed forces. According to Gabbard, the media’s biased coverage is damaging national unity and weakening public trust. She urged Americans to support efforts that ensure security while rejecting politically motivated narratives driven by propaganda.
Tulsi Gabbard Backs Trump’s Iran Strike, Slams Media for ‘Propaganda’ and Leaks
In a forceful defense of President Donald Trump’s recent military action, United States Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said new intelligence confirms the destruction of Iran’s key nuclear facilities, backing Trump’s claims and accusing the media of pushing propaganda to discredit the mission.
Posting on X (formerly Twitter), Gabbard echoed the President’s assertions that the targeted strikes on Iran were successful in crippling the country’s nuclear infrastructure. She went further to accuse major media outlets of deliberately misrepresenting classified intelligence to undermine the legitimacy of the operation and the credibility of the U.S. military.
1. New Intelligence Confirms Iranian Nuclear Sites Were ‘Destroyed’
Gabbard stated unequivocally that intelligence recently declassified confirms the U.S. military strikes had “destroyed” Iran’s core nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Esfahan. According to her, if Iran were to rebuild these facilities, the process would not only be extensive but could also take years due to the scale of destruction.
This statement comes amid internal debate among analysts about the long-term impact of the strikes, with some assessments suggesting the damage may only be temporary. Gabbard’s message, however, was clear: the operation had long-term strategic consequences for Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
2. A Direct Rebuke of Leaked DIA Report and Media Interpretation
Gabbard’s comments appeared aimed at recent media reports that cited a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) preliminary assessment. That report, reportedly shared through unofficial channels, claimed the strikes may have only delayed Iran’s nuclear program rather than dismantling it.
Gabbard dismissed those media stories as misleading, accusing outlets of selective leaking and omitting critical qualifiers—specifically that the DIA report was drafted with “low confidence” and was not definitive.
She called this a disservice to both the military and the intelligence community, stating the leaks were politically motivated and designed to erode public trust.
3. Praise for the Military’s Precision and Trump’s Leadership
Gabbard applauded the execution of the military operation, describing it as a “historic mission” that succeeded in neutralizing a significant threat to U.S. and global security. She credited President Trump’s decisive leadership and the military’s flawless execution as essential factors in what she called a “turning point” in Middle Eastern geopolitics.
Her framing closely aligned with Trump’s own narrative of the event, in which he has hailed the strikes as restoring “American deterrence” and achieving a strategic ceasefire with Iran after what he calls the “12-day war.”
4. A Polarized Reaction Amid Intelligence and Policy Debate
While Gabbard and Trump have presented the strike as a monumental success, others within the U.S. intelligence and foreign policy communities have expressed skepticism. Some experts argue that the long-term impact on Iran’s capabilities remains uncertain and caution against overly optimistic conclusions drawn from early-stage intelligence.
Nevertheless, Gabbard’s intervention signals an attempt by the Trump administration to control the narrative, push back against internal leaks, and cast doubt on the credibility of the press.
Her remarks also reflect the broader political tension between the administration and media organizations, which she described as tools of “propaganda” willing to manipulate sensitive intelligence for partisan purposes.
Conclusion:
Tulsi Gabbard’s strong backing of President Trump’s Iran strategy underscores the administration’s confidence in the success of the strikes and their effort to push back against media skepticism. As debate continues within intelligence circles and among foreign policy analysts, the political battle over the interpretation of classified information and media reporting is intensifying—highlighting yet again the deepening divide in Washington over truth, leadership, and national security.