The war between the United States, Israel, and Iran began with strikes on February 28, 2026. It has already caused major problems, including an energy crisis and questions about long-term strategy. Intelligence agencies collect and study information from many sources to help leaders make good choices. Their work is careful and aims to avoid personal opinions or outside pressure. Yet when leaders set aside or change that information to fit their goals, the results can be costly. Many experts now say the decision to strike Iran followed this pattern. It appears driven more by politics than by clear threats shown in intelligence reports. This raises important questions about how decisions are made at the highest levels and what lessons should be learned from past mistakes.
How do intelligence agencies normally work and why does their independence matter?
Intelligence work involves gathering small pieces of information from many places and putting them together into a clear picture. Agencies look at open reports, secret sources, satellite images, and other data. The goal is to understand risks without letting personal views or political wishes shape the final judgment. Modern intelligence systems grew out of hard lessons. The United States created the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947 after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. At that time, enough information existed to warn of danger, but the system failed to connect all the parts. Leaders and old structures missed the full threat.
Over time, rules were added to protect against bias. Analysts must consider different explanations for the same facts. They test their own assumptions and seek review from others. Today, the US intelligence community employs between 100,000 and 120,000 people. Their job requires staying neutral even when the news is unwelcome. Without this independence, leaders may hear only what they want instead of what is most likely true. Recent examples show the danger of ignoring this rule. In the years before Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine in 2022, many European analysts doubted it would happen because it seemed against Russia’s own stated interests. Vladimir Putin had cut himself off from honest advice and surrounded himself with people who agreed with him. The result has been a long, costly war that has weakened Russia.
The same risk appears when leaders cherry-pick facts. They take only the parts of intelligence that support their plans and set aside the rest. This creates groupthink, where everyone in the inner circle reinforces the same view. History shows how costly this can be. The 2003 invasion of Iraq followed a process in which the George W. Bush administration presented intelligence in a way that supported going to war. Assessments that did not clearly back the plan were downplayed. The long war that followed damaged US standing in the Middle East and helped strengthen Iran’s position in the region. These cases teach that good intelligence alone is not enough if leaders choose not to use it properly.
What signs suggest intelligence was sidelined in the decision to strike Iran?
In the weeks before the February 28 strikes, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, spoke to Congress. She said the final judgment on whether Iran posed an imminent threat belonged to the president. Her careful wording avoided saying whether intelligence agencies shared that view. Since she spoke under oath, many saw this as a sign that the White House had interpreted the information differently or set aside agency findings. Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned in protest. In his letter, he stated that President Trump ignored briefings showing Iran did not present an immediate danger to the United States. Instead, the decision relied on a small group of close supporters.
This approach echoes earlier patterns. The stated reason for the strikes centered on Iran’s nuclear program and an imminent threat. Yet available intelligence reportedly did not support the idea of an attack on the US or its allies in the immediate future. By moving ahead without broader agreement from intelligence professionals, the administration opened the door to outcomes that were both predictable and avoidable. The strikes killed much of Iran’s top leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. However, the new government that emerged appears even more hard-line than the one before. Regime change, if that was a goal, did not produce a friendlier outcome.
The energy crisis that followed shows the wider costs. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off a large share of global oil and gas flows. This led to sharp price increases and supply problems around the world. The head of the International Energy Agency described the situation as worse than the oil shocks of the 1970s. These results were not hidden possibilities. Experts had warned for years about the risks of military action against Iran and the likely response through the strait. When leaders set aside intelligence that pointed to these dangers, the country faced consequences that intelligence reports had flagged in advance.
What broader lessons does this case offer about leadership and intelligence?
The current war with Iran fits into a longer pattern where political goals shape how information is used. Leaders sometimes believe they know better than the experts who spend their days studying the details. They may feel pressure from domestic politics, allies, or personal views. In this case, the decision came during a time of other challenges at home, including economic worries and upcoming elections. Choosing military action can shift attention and rally support in the short term. Yet the long-term effects often prove more complex and damaging.
Intelligence agencies exist to reduce uncertainty. They cannot predict every event with perfect accuracy, but their work improves the odds of making informed choices. When their findings are ignored or reshaped, the risks grow. The Iraq experience still affects US influence today. Similarly, the Iran conflict has already weakened America’s position in the region and created new problems for global security. It has also placed extra strain on the intelligence community itself, which must now operate in a more difficult environment.
Strong systems protect against these mistakes. Clear rules, independent review, and respect for professional analysis help keep decisions grounded in facts. Leaders who listen to a wide range of views, including those that challenge their plans, make better choices over time. The opposite path—relying on a small circle that agrees with the leader—often leads to blind spots. The resignation of Joe Kent and the careful testimony from Tulsi Gabbard point to tension inside the system. These signs suggest the normal process of assessment was not fully followed.
Looking ahead, the war continues with no quick end in sight. Energy markets remain unstable, and the human and economic costs keep rising. The situation serves as a reminder that military force carries high stakes. When leaders bypass the careful work of intelligence agencies, the price can extend far beyond the battlefield. Past experiences from Pearl Harbor to Iraq to Ukraine show that ignoring or twisting expert analysis rarely leads to the easy victories some expect. Instead, it often creates deeper and longer-lasting problems for the country and the world.
The ongoing conflict with Iran highlights the need for leaders to treat intelligence as a tool for better decisions rather than something to fit around political aims. Restoring trust in the process and learning from repeated mistakes could help avoid similar outcomes in the future. As the situation develops, the full consequences of setting aside professional warnings will become clearer. The lesson remains timely: good information alone cannot prevent poor choices, but ignoring it almost always makes those choices more dangerous.
