Intelligence as Cover for War

Political leaders sometimes obtain or publicize selective intelligence statements to create a veneer of legitimacy while proceeding with regime‑change operations that contradict those same findings. When an intelligence head (here Tulsi Gabbard) testifies publicly that a target state is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but the administration subsequently bombs sites citing the opposite, it reveals a breakdown between adjudicated intelligence and policy action. — This dynamic undermines public trust in intelligence institutions, weakens congressional oversight, and makes it easier for administrations to escalate to war on suspect grounds.