In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
Posted by Joshua Scheer
As Washington intensifies rhetoric around Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions, past sworn testimony from Tulsi Gabbard is resurfacing — and raising uncomfortable questions.
According to a recent Newsweek report, Gabbard testified under oath before Congress in March 2025:
“Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program Khamenei suspended in 2003.”
That statement directly contradicts the renewed claims now circulating in Washington and Tel Aviv suggesting Tehran is on the verge of weaponization.
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern amplified the contradiction in a pointed public message addressed to Gabbard:
“Dear Tulsi Gabbard: You testified under oath in March 2025: ‘Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program Khamenei suspended in 2003.’ By your silence now you let yourself become just another female being used.”
Dear Tulsi Gabbard: You testified under oath in March 2025: “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program Khamenei suspended in 2003.” By your silence now you let yourself become just another female being used. https://t.co/SpufybFLgO
The comment underscores growing frustration among critics who argue that intelligence assessments are being selectively interpreted — or politically repurposed — amid escalating U.S.–Israel military action against Iran.
Gabbard later claimed her March testimony was “taken out of context” — though how a direct, sworn statement before Congress could be misinterpreted remains unclear. The words were unambiguous: Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and had not reauthorized the program suspended in 2003.
Yet by June, her tone had shifted.
In subsequent remarks, Gabbard suggested Iran’s nuclear advances posed a growing threat and emphasized enrichment levels and regional escalation rather than the absence of an active weapons program. The pivot — subtle but significant — mirrored the broader shift in Washington’s messaging as tensions intensified.
Whether this reflects new intelligence, political pressure, or strategic recalibration is anyone’s guess. What is clear is that the public record now contains two different emphases from the same official — one under oath, the other amid mounting calls for confrontation.
The 2003 Suspension
The reference in Gabbard’s testimony points to Iran’s halt of its structured nuclear weapons program in 2003, a conclusion long reflected in U.S. intelligence assessments. Even at the height of tensions during prior administrations, intelligence agencies maintained that while Iran expanded uranium enrichment, there was no conclusive evidence of an active weapons program.
That distinction — between enrichment capacity and weaponization intent — has historically marked the dividing line between diplomatic engagement and military confrontation.
Silence Amid Escalation
Gabbard’s earlier statement now stands in tension with the current political climate. Critics argue that if intelligence conclusions have not fundamentally changed, then public silence from officials who previously acknowledged those assessments contributes to a dangerous narrative drift toward war.
Supporters of a harder line against Tehran counter that Iran’s enrichment levels and regional posture justify aggressive containment regardless of formal weaponization status.
But the broader question remains: if sworn testimony established that Iran was not actively building a bomb, what has changed?
As bombs fall and rhetoric sharpens, that question may prove more consequential than any single tweet.
Editor’s Note:At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
