博客

A tense Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Wednesday revealed significant tensions between the intelligence community and the White House regarding the ongoing military engagement with Iran. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard asserted that determining what constitutes an “imminent threat” to the United States falls exclusively within presidential authority, not the intelligence community’s purview.

The hearing, occurring during the fourth week of joint U.S.-Israel operations against Iran, focused extensively on whether President Trump received adequate intelligence assessments before initiating hostilities. Democratic senators expressed particular concern about the administration’s apparent surprise when Iran retaliated by targeting Washington’s Gulf partners and moving to block the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.

Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) directly questioned whether intelligence assessments had identified an imminent nuclear threat from Iran, to which Gabbard responded: “Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president… it is not the intelligence community’s responsibility.” This exchange highlighted the fundamental disagreement between legislators and the intelligence director regarding proper threat assessment protocols.

The proceedings revealed additional complications stemming from Gabbard’s appointment. Democrats suggested her longstanding anti-war stance—maintained during her tenure as both a Democratic and Republican congresswoman—may have contributed to her marginalization within administration decision-making circles.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe intervened during the hearing to defend the administration’s preparedness, stating intelligence officials had provided constant briefings regarding Iran’s capabilities and intentions. He revealed that intelligence indicated “Iran had specific plans to hit US interests in energy sites across the region,” prompting protective measures before Operation Epic Fury.

The human cost of the conflict emerged during testimony, with disclosures that six soldiers died in Kuwait during the initial 48 hours of hostilities at an inadequately fortified facility. Additionally, over one million U.S. citizens across the region received only shelter-in-place instructions after hostilities began, with evacuation plans delayed several days.

Public opinion appears to be turning against the administration’s handling of the conflict. A Yahoo/YouGov survey released Wednesday showed two-thirds of Americans disapprove of President Trump’s management of rising gasoline prices directly linked to the Iranian conflict.

A prominent Saudi geopolitical analyst has revealed that any direct Saudi involvement in a US-Israeli military campaign against Iran would trigger the kingdom’s mutual defense agreement with Pakistan, potentially bringing Pakistani nuclear capabilities into the regional conflict.

Salman al-Ansari, a respected Saudi geopolitical researcher, stated in an exclusive interview with Canada’s CBC News that full Saudi military engagement would make Iran “the biggest loser” due to the automatic activation of the Riyadh-Islamabad defense pact. “We can say it literally that there is a nuclear umbrella over Saudi Arabia,” al-Ansari emphasized during the revealing discussion.

The significant defense agreement, formalized last year following Israeli strikes on Hamas negotiators in Doha, establishes a collective security framework structurally comparable to NATO’s Article 5. Official documents from both governments explicitly state that “any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both,” creating potential obligations for Pakistani military assistance if Saudi territory faces sustained attacks.

This development occurs amid escalating regional tensions, with Saudi infrastructure already experiencing repeated assaults from Iranian ballistic missiles and drone attacks. Critical facilities including the US Embassy in Riyadh, Prince Sultan Air Base, and vital energy installations have been targeted, while Iran’s strategic control over the Strait of Hormuz has significantly impacted Saudi oil exports.

Despite developing alternative energy export routes like the East-West pipeline, which maintains approximately four million barrels per day in crude sales bypassing Hormuz, Saudi leadership faces mounting pressure regarding potential direct involvement in offensive operations against Iran. The kingdom, along with other Gulf states, had previously lobbied the Trump administration against military engagement with Tehran.

The Pakistan dimension introduces complex global implications, potentially internationalizing the conflict beyond the Middle East. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar recently confirmed discussing the defense pact directly with Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi, noting Tehran’s demand for assurances that Saudi territory wouldn’t serve as a staging ground for attacks against Iran.

Energy dependencies further complicate the situation, with Pakistan relying heavily on Gulf crude oil and natural gas imports. In a significant development this week, a Pakistani-flagged tanker successfully transited the Strait of Hormuz with its tracking systems active—the first vessel carrying non-Iranian crude to do so—following apparent diplomatic negotiations between Islamabad and Tehran.

In an exclusive interview with Middle East Eye, France’s ambassador to Oman Nabil Hajlaoui has delivered a sharp diplomatic rebuke of the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, characterizing the operation as both unjustified and outside international legal frameworks. The ambassador’s remarks, recorded for The David Hearst Podcast, represent a significant public divergence between Western allies regarding Middle East military strategy.

Hajlaoui articulated France’s position with notable clarity: ‘This military operation exists outside of international law and we cannot endorse it in any way. We see no justification, no supporting Security Council resolution, nor any situation requiring such rapid escalation to military action.’

The timing of the offensive, launched on February 28th, proved particularly troubling according to the French diplomat. The attacks coincided with a critical juncture in Oman-mediated negotiations between Washington and Tehran that had shown promising developments. Ambassador Hajlaoui revealed that French officials had received briefings indicating substantive progress in these talks, with several elements ‘moving in the right direction.’

This assessment aligns with recent statements from Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, who three weeks prior had announced Iran’s agreement to never stockpile enriched uranium and to degrade existing nuclear material to ‘the lowest level possible’ through an irreversible conversion process into fuel. The US-Israeli military operation commenced merely one day after these diplomatic breakthroughs.

Hajlaoui expressed understanding regarding Iran’s anger following the attacks, noting the natural frustration when ‘you discuss and then you are attacked.’ While acknowledging that Tehran’s concessions remained ‘very far from American expectations,’ the ambassador identified broader sticking points including Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional activities that Western powers view as destabilizing.

The French diplomat suggested Israel likely drove the momentum toward military confrontation rather than prolonged negotiations, stating: ‘I’m really not informed of the way the Israelis and Americans discussed this preparation, but we can just see that the momentum was pushed by the Israelis.’

This military escalation has generated profound disappointment in Muscat according to Hajlaoui, who described the mood as one of ‘clear dismay’ at what he termed a ‘collective failure to prevent war.’ The ambassador warned that Gulf states are being unwillingly drawn into a conflict they did not seek, despite their recent efforts to rebuild relations with Tehran.

Hajlaoui issued sobering warnings about the conflict’s potential expansion, noting the absence of clear limits to escalation. He highlighted the particularly grave economic implications should Iran close the Strait of Hormuz—the world’s most critical oil chokepoint through which approximately 20% of global oil output and one-third of liquefied natural gas transit.

While France has deployed an aircraft carrier to the region as reassurance to partners, Hajlaoui emphasized that France has no intention of involvement ‘in any way in this war.’ The nation is collaborating with allies to monitor the strategic strait but will refrain from active intervention during ongoing military operations.

The ambassador characterized potential US troop deployment as ‘a very big game changer’ that would contradict the administration’s stated policy of avoiding ‘endless wars.’ Such escalation would represent ‘an incredible political risk’ and a total policy shift according to Hajlaoui.

Finally, the diplomat expressed concern about the undermining of multilateralism internationally, citing reduced US contributions to UN agencies and the creation of alternative forums competing with established international institutions.

The Middle Eastern military confrontation enters its third week with escalating intensity as Iran demonstrates unexpected resilience against combined US-Israeli operations. The conflict, initiated on February 28 as a voluntary military engagement by Washington and Jerusalem, has evolved into a protracted struggle with no clear resolution in sight.

Tehran’s Islamic regime is engaged in a battle for survival while simultaneously executing a strategy of asymmetric warfare designed to inflict maximum regional and global economic disruption. Despite inferior conventional military capabilities compared to the US-Israeli alliance, Iranian forces have maintained operational continuity and institutional stability, rapidly appointing Mojtaba Khamenei as successor to the slain supreme leader.

The American position, characterized by contradictory objectives and unclear strategic goals, contrasts sharply with Israel’s explicitly stated ambition to dismantle both the Iranian regime and diminish Iranian state sovereignty. Prime Minister Netanyahu has further articulated expansionist territorial ambitions based on biblical references to ‘greater Israel,’ receiving unexpected endorsement from US Ambassador Mike Huckabee.

Military analysts observe that the conflict has entered a critical phase where missile and interceptor inventories may determine the eventual outcome. Meanwhile, Iran continues to leverage regional proxy networks and economic pressure tactics, attempting to transform the bilateral confrontation into a broader regional crisis that might compel Gulf Arab states to intervene diplomatically.

The humanitarian consequences continue to mount, with Iranian and Lebanese civilian populations bearing disproportionate casualties. The conflict has already triggered global energy market disruptions through attacks on critical infrastructure including Kharg Island’s oil export facilities, though Trump administration officials maintain these economic impacts remain temporary.

As the war progresses without clear exit strategies, international observers anticipate either material exhaustion or political declaration of victory as potential conclusion scenarios, though neither outcome promises regional stability in the polarized post-conflict landscape.