In Washington, power always trumps principles.
How does Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard truly view Iran? The answer depends on which iteration of Gabbard you consider.
Earlier in her political journey, during her tenure as vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee in the mid-2010s, Gabbard supported then-President Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action despite repeatedly warning that she regarded Iran as the “world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.” She also openly acknowledged the significant alliance between the United States and Israel, a key driver of Washington’s enduring friction with Iran’s government.
The JCPOA represented Obama’s initiative with Western allies aimed at curbing the nuclear threat posed by the Islamic Republic. According to most international monitoring agencies, it effectively delayed Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapon development through rigorous restrictions and inspections. Despite sharp criticism from Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and segments of the American political right, Iran refrained from advancing nuclear weapons as long as the agreement remained active.
Although Sanders lost to Clinton, who then lost to Trump, this period marked a transformation in Gabbard’s stance on the Middle East. Growing tired of endless war rhetoric that perpetuated a cycle of cynical, militaristic propaganda, she resolved to take a stand. Following Trump’s assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, she publicly condemned the act as an “act of war” lacking congressional consent.
By 2019, Gabbard was eyeing the presidency. During her most vocal anti-war phase, she ran a campaign opposing intervention, which led to backlash. Critics accused her of favoritism toward Moscow, vandalizing more than 25 of her campaign signs in New Hampshire with hammer and sickle symbols insinuating Russian ties.
Even after backing Biden and aligning with the Democratic mainstream, Gabbard was gradually distancing herself from the party. Throughout Biden’s term, her antiwar message found listeners among disenchanted MAGA supporters and influential right-wing voices such as podcaster Joe Rogan. By the 2024 election cycle, she was viewed as a committed and credible advocate for anti-interventionism.
Navigating this evolving landscape, Gabbard balanced political pragmatism with her convictions, establishing herself as a contentious yet determined voice advocating limitations on U.S. foreign engagements. When Trump secured reelection, Gabbard’s appointment as Director of National Intelligence marked a triumph for the anti-interventionist faction within the Republican ranks that propelled Trump to victory. What followed, however, was unpredictable.
The conflict with Iran unfolded much like numerous 21st-century American wars: launched with ambiguous objectives. References to nuclear weapons, decades of hostility, the defense of Israel, and recently, claims of an “imminent threat” surfaced. Familiar buzzwords circulated, amplified by Fox News commentators from the Boomer generation.
This war, however framed, has placed Gabbard and key aides in precarious political and operational circumstances. Joe Kent, who acted as Gabbard’s chief of staff and top aide at DNI, resigned in protest over the Iran conflict. The day after, Gabbard testified before a Senate committee to articulate the administration’s stance on the war.
During the hearing, Gabbard described the Iranian regime as “intact but largely degraded.” When probed about whether Iran presents an “imminent threat” to the U.S., she avoided a clear response, deferring to Trump’s prerogative to determine such threats. When questioned about if Iran was “weeks away” from obtaining a nuclear weapon, as Trump and his vocal supporters claim, Gabbard evaded a straightforward yes-or-no answer, saying it would be a “disservice” to provide one.
In a House Intelligence Committee hearing, Representative Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) encapsulated the confusion with a pointed question: why was Gabbard appointed to oversee intelligence protecting Americans if only the president decides what constitutes an imminent threat? The reality is that Gabbard reflects many Washington politicians and bureaucrats alike, motivated less by unyielding principles and more by aspirations for power, recognition, and legacy.
Gabbard’s progression from an independent antiwar skeptic to a conventional Republican operative parallels that of Vice President J.D. Vance, who, in recent weeks, has quietly offered justifications for a war contradicting the non-interventionist commitments he, Gabbard, and Trump voiced during campaigns. In Washington, political maturity often translates to prioritizing survival, with officials frequently saying whatever is necessary to secure influence and status in a system that values loyalty over conviction—disheartening many idealistic followers.
So why does Tulsi continue to tow the party line? What are her alternatives? Return to X? Rejoin the podcast circuit and be admired by those without influence? She is precisely where she aspired to be—at the center of power—and intends to maintain control for as long as possible.
Original article: www.theamericanconservative.com
About the Author
