Trump Rejects Intel on Iran’s Nuclear Program, Raising War Fears

In a move that’s barely registering in Australian media, President Trump has publicly dismissed U.S. intelligence assessments concluding Iran is not actively building a nuclear weapon, prompting concerns he may be leaning toward military conflict. The story carries significant global implications, including for Australia as a U.S. ally in the Indo-Pacific.

While returning from the G7 summit in Canada, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, “I don’t care what [U.S. intelligence] said. I think [Iran] were very close to having one.” This directly contradicted Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s March 2025 congressional testimony, where she stated Iran’s supreme leader had not restarted the nuclear weapons program suspended in 2003. Gabbard noted Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile was at historic highs but maintained it was not pursuing a bomb. U.S. intelligence, including a November 2024 report under President Biden, similarly found no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program, though it highlighted activities such uranium enrichment that could position Iran to build one if it chose.

Trump’s remarks align him closely with Netanyahu, who has long warned of an “imminent” Iranian nuclear threat and recently advocated for pre-emptive strikes. Israel launched airstrikes on Iranian facilities last week, citing an International Atomic Energy Agency report that Iran breached non-proliferation obligations and had enough near-weapons-grade uranium for multiple bombs, despite U.S. intelligence sources countering that Iran is “not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon” and is up to three years away from producing one.

Trump’s dismissal of his own intelligence community has fueled speculation about his intentions. His frustration with stalled diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions was evident when he said, “I’m not too much in the mood to negotiate with Iran.” The U.S. has deployed additional military assets to the region, including a carrier group and fighter jets, to provide Trump with “more options” for intervention.

The White House has reiterated Trump’s long-standing stance: “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” A June 17 statement listed over a dozen instances since February 2025 where Trump emphasised this, framing it as a non-negotiable red line. Yet, his recent rhetoric, including a social media post demanding “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” from Iran, suggests a hardening position.

Trump may be under pressure from pro-Israel hawks in his circle, who downplay the risk of Iranian retaliation and frame strikes as a limited operation against nuclear sites. Others, such as former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, argue Trump’s threats are “mainly bluster” to project strength, predicting he’ll back off to avoid derailing U.S.-Russia détente or triggering a global economic crisis. Still, the absence of Gabbard from key national security discussions signals a possible sidelining of voices advocating restraint.

Australia’s strategic alignment with the U.S. through AUKUS and its role in Middle East operations (e.g., past deployments in Iraq) mean a U.S.-Iran conflict could draw Canberra into logistical or political support, yet public discourse hasn’t engaged. The Australian government has not commented publicly on Trump’s stance (that I am aware of), and local coverage of Iran remains limited to brief mentions of Israel’s strikes.

A U.S. military strike on Iran could destabilise the Middle East, spike global oil prices, and strain Australia’s economy, which relies heavily on energy markets. It risks escalating into a broader conflict, potentially involving China or Russia, both of which have ties to Iran. Australia’s alliance obligations could also pressure it to back U.S. actions, complicating its Indo-Pacific balancing act. Either Trump is flexing his military muscle to deter Iran without war, or he’s being nudged toward a catastrophic conflict by Israel’s agenda.

The bottom line: The disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and U.S. intelligence underscores a volatile decision-making process, with implications Australia can’t afford to ignore.

 

See also: The prophecy

 

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969