Iran intends to rebuild its infrastructure and restore its nuclear enrichment capabilities following U.S. airstrikes on its nuclear facilities last summer, Tulsi Gabbard said during her testimony before the U.S. House Intelligence Committee on global threats.

Her remarks came amid controversy over discrepancies between her oral testimony and a previously circulated written statement.

Reports indicated that the U.S. Director of National Intelligence’s written statement, prepared for the Senate, originally claimed that Iranian authorities had taken no steps to restore uranium enrichment capabilities after the strikes, which it described as having “annihilated the nuclear program.” Gabbard later explained that she removed this line from her oral remarks due to time constraints.

During her testimony, Gabbard clarified that while Iran has not yet taken concrete steps to restore its nuclear capabilities, it maintains the intention to do so.

She declined to comment on whether Iran is planning a preemptive attack against the United States, noting that determining what constitutes an “imminent threat” is the responsibility of the president. She also avoided addressing whether there is intelligence indicating such intentions, emphasizing that such decisions fall within the executive branch.

Diverging U.S. and Israeli objectives

Elsewhere in the hearing, Gabbard highlighted differences between U.S. and Israeli strategic objectives regarding Iran.

She stated that Israel is primarily focused on weakening Iran’s leadership by targeting key figures, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

By contrast, U.S. President Donald Trump has said that Washington’s objectives include dismantling Iran’s ballistic missile launch capabilities, limiting its missile production, degrading its naval power, and countering the Revolutionary Guards’ mine-laying capacity.

Gabbard noted that these priorities differ from Israel’s approach but did not elaborate on Israel’s position regarding any potential agreement with Iran.

When asked whether Israel had disregarded President Trump’s stance by attacking Iran’s energy infrastructure, Gabbard declined to comment, saying she was not privy to Israel’s internal decision-making or strategic discussions.

“I don’t have access to their negotiations or the thinking that guides these decisions,” she said.

Regarding Washington’s role, Gabbard emphasized that the United States is not directly involved in operational actions against Iran but continues to provide daily intelligence assessments as the situation evolves.