As President-elect Donald Trump began forming his core national security team early this year, the spotlight turned to two nominees who were more recognized for their frequent appearances on Fox News than their executive experience: Tulsi Gabbard, nominated for the position of Director of National Intelligence, and Pete Hegseth, selected to lead the Pentagon. Both individuals barely secured Senate confirmation, but as Trump contemplates a pivotal decision regarding military action against Iran and its nuclear ambitions, neither Gabbard nor Hegseth appears to be a prominent figure in Trump’s advisory circle, according to insights from current and former U.S. officials.
Currently, Trump’s advisory group for a potential U.S. strike on Iran is referred to as the “Tier One” group. This select team includes Vice President JD Vance, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. These key figures are assisting Trump as he deliberates the possibility of using U.S. military capabilities to target Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, which are deeply fortified sites like Fordow and Natanz.
The implications of U.S. strikes could be profound, potentially igniting a new Middle Eastern conflict with unpredictable ramifications, provoking retaliation from Iran against U.S. military bases, and destabilizing the global economy. Trump has publicly stated that he has not yet made a decision regarding military action against Iran. His comments have fluctuated between a desire for a diplomatic resolution to Tehran's nuclear activities and aggressive demands for Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.”
Senator Jack Reed, the leading Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, expressed concern about the rapid shifts in Trump’s stance, noting that the president's inconsistent messaging makes it challenging for advisers to remain aligned with his strategy. Reed remarked, “The president changes his position so quickly that it is hard to keep anybody in the loop.”
Representatives for Gabbard and Hegseth countered claims that they are disengaged from advising Trump. The president, known for his instinctual decision-making, is navigating the current crisis without many of the established support systems that previous administrations relied on. Recent staff reductions at the National Security Council have left the team less equipped to prepare comprehensive options for the president, with Secretary of State Rubio stepping into the role of national security adviser after the ousting of Michael Waltz.
Gabbard, who has served in the military, has often advocated for peace and caution in foreign policy. However, her recent remarks regarding U.S. intelligence assessments on Iran’s nuclear program have reportedly soured her relationship with Trump. During a White House meeting, Trump confronted Gabbard about a video she shared discussing the risks of nuclear conflict, expressing his displeasure with her comments. Despite this, Gabbard maintains that she and the president share common goals.
In a recent congressional appearance, Gabbard reiterated that U.S. intelligence indicates Iran has not resumed its nuclear weapons program, which it ceased in 2003. In contrast, Trump dismissed her statements, asserting that he believes Iran is closer to acquiring a weapon than the intelligence suggests.
As tensions escalate, Trump is increasingly relying on experienced military leaders like Gen. Caine and Army Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, who commands U.S. Central Command. These generals have taken the lead in discussing possible military actions, with Hegseth remaining somewhat sidelined. Despite claims from Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell that Hegseth is engaged, insiders reveal a disconnect between Hegseth and the White House’s operational discussions.
As military forces are deployed to the Middle East to bolster defenses against potential Iranian retaliation, Trump is faced with an intricate web of decisions. The dynamics within his national security team reflect a departure from traditional pathways, emphasizing a reliance on military expertise over political appointees. The unfolding situation continues to pose significant challenges for Trump and his advisers as they navigate the complexities of U.S. foreign policy in the region.
