Until recently I had serious concerns that my old outfit, i.e., the CIA, was failing to do its job in providing accurate analysis to the President. Looks like my concerns were misplaced. While there have been a few occasions in the history of the CIA that the analysts told the then active administration what they believed the President wanted to hear, the more common problem is that the CIA analysts rain on the President’s parade and their analysis is ignored. That appears to be the case now with Iran. Before delving into what the CIA has been saying about the war in Iran, I want to direct your attention to the recent statement of the Chief of Naval Operations — Daryl Caudle — on the Strait of Hormuz:
If we go try to do escorts — we have looked into that. That’s a very challenging mission in that narrow strait when it’s contested.
We’re gonna have to get to a place where that strait is open with a generally accepted ceasefire before that can be turned on en masse.
Providing escort services through a contested strait will, in my military opinion, exceed the capacity of the Navy to do that effectively.
The good Admiral confirms what I have been saying for several weeks, i.e., the US does not have a viable military option to eliminate Iran’s ability to stop ships from transiting the the Strait without permission from Iranian authorities.
Since the start of the war, the CIA, under the supervision of the DNI, has provided Congress with three briefings about the course of the war. Across all three intelligence engagements, a consistent and deeply significant gap has emerged: the CIA and broader intelligence community have systematically assessed the war as harder, Iran as more resilient, the missile threat as larger, and the prospects for a quick resolution as dimmer than the Trump administration’s public statements have claimed. The gap between classified intelligence and public presidential declarations has become one of the defining features of the conflict’s political landscape. March 3 — Classified All-Congress Briefing CIA Director John Ratcliffe, alongside Secretary of State Rubio, Secretary of Defense Hegseth, and General Caine, held classified briefings first for the entire Senate and then the full House of Representatives on March 3. Missouri Republican Josh Hawley told reporters afterward that the operation was massive and changing rapidly. Democrats emerged from the briefing notably alarmed. Representative Ami Bera pressed Gabbard directly on whether she had warned Trump that a war with Iran would be so costly and devastating it would “make our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look like a picnic” — a statement Gabbard had made publicly before taking office. Gabbard declined to answer substantively, saying she was required to “check her personal views at the door” in her role as DNI. March 18 — Senate Select Intelligence Committee Worldwide Threats Hearing This was the most publicly revealing intelligence engagement, and it generated significant controversy. Intelligence agency directors testified that Iran’s clerical leadership had been damaged but not ousted from power, and that the mullahs may rebuild their degraded military capabilities over the next several years despite ongoing US and Israeli strikes — a finding that significantly tempered Trump’s claims that the military danger from Iran had been largely eliminated.
The nuclear contradiction exploded at this hearing. The 2026 Global Threat Assessment stated that prior to Operation Epic Fury, Iran was “intending to try to recover from the devastation of its nuclear infrastructure sustained during the 12-Day War” — an assessment that diverged sharply from Gabbard’s own prepared written remarks submitted to senators, which had said Iran’s nuclear program was “obliterated.” On the critical question of whether Trump was warned about the Strait of Hormuz: Under questioning from Senators Angus King and Mark Kelly, neither Ratcliffe nor Gabbard would say whether Trump had asked for an assessment of the risk that the Strait could be choked off, whether they had provided one, or what it might have said. Gabbard said the intelligence community had “long believed that closing the strait was a possibility.” Ratcliffe declined to say whether he had made this point in the days before the war, but confirmed he speaks to Trump 10–15 times a week. The witnesses also refused to confirm, deny, or address reports of growing Russian military and intelligence support to Iran, and declined to shed light on the effect the war is having on America’s ability to help arm NATO nations. Early May — Classified CIA Assessment Delivered to White House Policymakers The most consequential and most damaging intelligence disclosure came in early May, when the Washington Post obtained details of a classified CIA analysis delivered directly to administration decision-makers:
The CIA concluded that Iran can survive the US naval blockade for at least three to four months before facing more severe economic hardship — a finding that directly contradicted Trump’s optimism about the blockade forcing a rapid Iranian capitulation. On missile capabilities — directly contradicting Hegseth’s and Trump’s public claims: The CIA assessment found that Iran retains about 75% of its prewar inventories of mobile missile launchers and about 70% of its prewar stockpiles of missiles. The assessment also found that Iran has managed to reopen almost all of its underground storage facilities, repair some damaged missiles, and even complete the assembly of missiles that were in advanced stages of production when the war broke out. Trump had claimed Iran’s arsenal was “mostly decimated” and down to “18 or 19%” of pre-war levels — a claim the CIA’s own numbers directly refuted. On the blockade’s effectiveness: US intelligence satellites detected evidence of goods and energy being moved across land borders and unofficial routes, indicating that Iran’s neighbors are not cooperating fully with the US blockade. The CIA found that Iran had stockpiled essential goods and fuel sufficient for several months even in the event of a total blockade. On the strategic prognosis: One US source told the Post that Iran’s ability to withstand prolonged economic hardship is far greater than the CIA assessment itself indicated, saying “The leadership has become more radical and more confident in its ability to outlast US political will, as well as in its ability to continue domestic repression to thwart any opposition.” A former Israeli military intelligence chief quoted in the assessment summary added: “What started as a war supposedly aimed at toppling the regime and dismantling its nuclear program” could still end in strategic failure despite military successes, because “they don’t think they need to capitulate.”
The Hollywood version of how the CIA and the President interact is largely bunk. That fantasy version sees the CIA providing a President with irrefutable facts and the President, in response, eagerly embracing the intel findings. The reality is different… The President, surrounded by sycophants, has already decided what the narrative will be and refuses to accept the CIA assessment. We see that same pattern on display here, i.e., with Trump declaring the obliteration of all Iranian military capabilities while the CIA presents a diametrically opposed picture. Been there, done that and I got the T-shirt.
I am not suggesting that the CIA analysis has been spot on since the start of the war on 28 February, but at least the analysts are not echoing Trump’s nonsensical claims that Iran is defeated. Far from it. I believe that Iran’s military capabilities have increased since the 28th of February because of additional military assistance provided by China and Russia.
I started the day speaking with Mario Nawfal: Jim Webb, the son of James H. Webb Jr. who is a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran, author, and former US Senator from Virginia, has launched a new YouTube channel. I had lunch and a private meeting with Senator Webb 22 years ago, but that’s another story. His son, who, like his father, also served with the US Marine Corps, is a smart, savvy young man: Garland Nixon and I did our usual Thursday chat. Garland is a very generous host: --- I thank you for your invaluable support by taking time to read or comment. I do not charge a subscription fee nor do I accept advertising. I want the content to be accessible to everyone interested in the issues I am discussing. However, if you wish to make a donation, please see this link .