John Ratcliffe Admits US Had Intelligence Predicting Iran Would Strike U.S. In Middle East If Israel Attacked First

Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe suggested that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States because of a probable impending conflict between Israel and the Islamic Republic during a Thursday hearing.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Mar. 2 that President Donald Trump’s administration knew Israel would attack Iran, which would cause the Islamic Republic to attack the United States, presenting an imminent threat. During the House Intelligence Committee hearing, Ratcliffe appeared to echo Rubio’s comments.

WATCH:

Democratic Indiana Rep. Andre Carson asked Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard and Ratcliffe whether there was “any evidence that Iran intended to conduct a preemptive attack on the U.S. prior to beginning this war.”

Gabbard asserted she could not answer the question during the public hearing and repeated her claim that Trump was in charge of determining whether there was an imminent threat, but Ratcliffe provided a more substantive answer.

“Congressman, as the DNI said, there’s a body of intelligence that we’ll be able to cover in the classified portion of this hearing that does reflect that in the likely event of a conflict between Iran and Israel that the U.S. would be immediately attacked, regardless of whether the United States stayed out of that conflict,” he said.

Later in the hearing, both Gabbard and Ratcliffe asserted Israel did not “force the U.S.’ hand and make us take action.”

However, former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) Joe Kent, who resigned on Tuesday due to the war, told Daily Caller News Foundation co-founder Tucker Carlson on “The Tucker Carlson Show” Wednesday that he believed Iran did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S.

“I think this is key, I mean, this would be more challenging to explain had the Secretary of State, the president and the Speaker of the House not come out and said that we conducted this attack at this time because the Israelis were about to do so,” Kent said. “So that takes away the argument that there was an imminent threat as in Iran planning to attack us immediately. That just simply did not exist.”

“The Israelis drove the decision to take this action, which we knew would set off a series of events, meaning the Iranians would retaliate,” he said. “Now I think there’s a potential there where we could’ve done several different things. We could’ve simply said to the Israelis, ‘No, you will not. And if you do, then we will take something away from you.’ I think that it’s fine that we offer defense to Israel, but when we’re providing the means for their defense, we get to dictate the terms of when they go on the offensive, otherwise they stand to lose that relationship.”

America and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury on Feb. 28, killing Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of other senior leaders. Trump’s letter to Congress regarding the operation did not specify an imminent threat, but mentioned that the strikes were designed to “neutralize Iran’s malign activities” and “advance vital United States national interests.”