Is Trump going to follow George W. Bush footsteps?

(MENAFN) The key question shaping President Donald Trump’s stance on whether to join Israel’s military action against Iran is how close Tehran is to developing a nuclear weapon.

This issue, fraught with concerns over imminent dangers to the United States and regional stability, has revealed a clear split between Trump and one of his top advisers, Tulsi Gabbard.

The debate echoes disputes from decades ago during a previous Republican administration facing a Middle Eastern crisis.

During a surprise early return from the Canadian G7 summit aboard Air Force One, Trump was asked if he agreed with Gabbard’s testimony in March, where she stated that Iran was not actively building a nuclear bomb.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump replied, adding he believed Iran was “very close” to having a bomb.

Gabbard had testified before Congress that U.S. intelligence agencies found no evidence Iran had resumed its halted 2003 nuclear weapons program, despite an unprecedented stockpile of enriched uranium—a key bomb ingredient.

Following Trump’s comments, Gabbard pointed to uranium enrichment levels as proof that she and the president “are on the same page” regarding concerns.

Gabbard’s appointment as director of national intelligence was controversial, given her prior criticisms of U.S. intelligence, her openness to meeting adversaries such as former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and her outspoken opposition to interventionist foreign policies.

A former Democratic presidential contender who supported Senator Bernie Sanders, she broke with the Democratic Party in 2022 and endorsed Trump last year.

Her narrow Senate confirmation in February, by a 52-48 vote, was seen as evidence of Trump elevating isolationist voices within his administration.

Despite Gabbard’s insistence on alignment, Trump’s dismissal of her sworn testimony suggests Iran hawks may be gaining influence in the White House.

Vice President JD Vance, another non-interventionist, defended Gabbard but affirmed support for whatever course Trump chooses regarding Iran.

“I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue,” Vance wrote. “I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people’s goals.”

This apparent discord between Trump and Gabbard also reflects a deeper divide within the “America First” movement over U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict.

Those convinced Iran is close to a nuclear weapon—including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, hawks in Congress, and the Israeli government—point to last week’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) finding that Iran violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for the first time in two decades.

Meanwhile, advocates of non-intervention, such as conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, argue that evidence for an Iranian bomb is exaggerated to justify regime change and military action.

Carlson wrote, “The real divide isn’t between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians. The real divide is between those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it.”

These voices recall the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and warn that an attack on Iran—a country three times larger with double the population—would be an equally catastrophic foreign policy blunder.

The George W. Bush administration justified its 2003 invasion of Iraq by warning of grave threats posed to the United States from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, basing its case on intelligence reports that were ultimately proven incorrect.

“Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” Bush declared in a televised address in October 2002.

To strengthen the case, Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations, holding up a small vial he claimed contained a fraction of the weaponized anthrax Iraq possessed.

“These are not assertions,” Powell insisted. “What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”

However, skepticism about the accuracy of those intelligence claims, combined with the unpopular, costly, and deadly US occupation of Iraq—where no weapons of mass destruction were ever found—led to electoral gains for Democrats and increased dissent within Republican ranks.

By 2016, dissatisfaction among Republicans with the political establishment helped propel Donald Trump—who had criticized the Iraq War—to secure the party’s presidential nomination and eventually the presidency.

Now, nearly a decade later, Trump is considering military intervention in the Middle East despite U.S. intelligence agencies’ assessments, rather than because of them.

While some conservatives, such as Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, advocate for regime change, there seems to be little support in the White House for a broad-scale invasion and nation-building campaign like that seen in Iraq in 2003.

Still, military actions can unfold in unexpected ways.

Although Trump faces different circumstances and contemplates a different strategy than his Republican predecessor, the impact of his choice to either heed or dismiss his intelligence advisers’ conclusions may carry consequences just as profound.

MENAFN19062025000045017281ID1109694785