US Director of National Intelligence Contradicts Trump: Iran Has Not Resumed Uranium Enrichment After 2025

Washington – Said Arikat - 3/18/2026

In a notable testimony before the US Senate on Wednesday, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced that Iran has not rebuilt its uranium enrichment capabilities since the war that broke out in June 2025, which Israel launched with US military support targeting Iranian nuclear facilities.

In her statement, Gabbard clarified that the military operation, dubbed "Midnight Hammer," "resulted in the destruction of the Iranian nuclear program," asserting that "no efforts have been made since then to try to rebuild enrichment capability." She added that the entrances to the underground nuclear facilities that were bombed "have been sealed with earth and concrete," hindering access to them or their reactivation in the foreseeable future.

These statements contradict previous positions held by US President Donald Trump, who justified the military operations by the necessity of preventing Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon, considering that war to be "the last and best opportunity" to achieve this goal.

For his part, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baqaei stated that the damage to the nuclear facilities makes it difficult to implement normal technical procedures, in the absence of clear mechanisms and consideration for safety and security requirements. Baqaei stressed that "Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy is an inherent and inalienable right," emphasizing that political pressures will not change this stance.

Gabbard's testimony reveals a clear gap between intelligence assessments and political rhetoric in Washington. While the Trump administration sought to justify the military strike as an urgent strategic necessity, intelligence data indicates that the threat may not have been as immediate as it was portrayed. This contradiction raises questions about how intelligence information is used in decision-making, and whether it was subject to preconceived political considerations rather than being an objective guide for security policies.

The issue of "burying" nuclear facilities under rubble and concrete points to a complex technical reality, as this does not necessarily mean the definitive elimination of Iranian nuclear capabilities, but rather a postponement of the possibility of their recovery. The history of nuclear programs shows that technical knowledge and human infrastructure remain even after facilities are destroyed. Therefore, talking about "destroying the program" may be tactically accurate, but it does not strategically resolve the issue, especially if Iran later has political and technical conditions to rebuild.

The Iranian position, as expressed by Baqaei, reflects a firm adherence to the international legal framework that guarantees states' right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. However, this discourse intersects with ongoing international doubts about the nature of the Iranian program. In the absence of effective monitoring mechanisms after the strikes, the issue may become more complex, where legal considerations mix with security concerns, leaving the crisis open to possibilities of escalation or a return to a new negotiating path with different terms.