Return to Transcripts main page
Connect the World
UAE Base Used by Australia Hit by Iranian Drones; Over 900 Killed in Lebanon since Conflict Began; Intel Officials Testify in U.S. Senate on Global Threats. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired March 18, 2026 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:00]
(MUSIC PLAYING)
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN HOST (voice-over): Welcome to the second hour of the show from our Middle East programming headquarters. I'm Becky Anderson in
Abu Dhabi, where the time is just after 6:00 in the evening. It's 5:30 in Tehran.
And we begin with the latest developments in the U.S.-Israel war with Iran and its regional fallout. As Iran holds a funeral procession for its slain
security chief, Ali Larijani, Israel says it has also killed the Iranian intelligence minister in an overnight strike in Tehran.
Esmaeil Khatib's death was announced by the Israeli defense minister. Iran has yet to confirm that.
A top Israeli intelligence official believes Israel's campaign of targeted killings is creating, quote, "chaos" in the Iranian regime and is expected
to create further destabilization.
Well, Iran vowing revenge for these and blaming its punishing strikes against its
Gulf neighbors on the U.S. And other countries are being drawn into the conflict as well. Australia says an Iranian projectile hit an airbase it
uses in the UAE.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTHONY ALBANESE, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: It was an Iranian projectile hit near that base. I can confirm that no Australian personnel were injured
and everyone is absolutely safe at this point in time.
There was minor damage to an accommodation block and a medical facility due to a small fire that was created as a result of that projectile hitting on
a road leading up to that base.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: Well, Saudi Arabia is hosting Arab and Islamic foreign ministers for discussions on security. Nic Robertson is in Riyadh, while Oren
Liebermann has reaction from Jerusalem.
I want to start with you, Nic. Critical times as this region continues to be attacked by what it describes as unprovoked and reckless Iranian
strikes. And this is now enshrined in international law, that language.
What do we expect from these meetings in Saudi?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes. Number one, I think, Becky, it's pretty significant, isn't it, that these -- this meeting of the
foreign ministers will be held in person. It's taken over two weeks of war to get to this moment.
There have been plenty of conference calls between the GCC and other Arab and regional leaders and foreign ministers but actually the -- actually
meeting face-to-face is pretty significant.
Will it make a difference, the conversations?
Not clear but putting people together around a table often helps to find a common position. And I think that's what we're going to hear here, a common
and unified position, being stuck to, as I've already heard, and hammered out perhaps further.
Saudi Arabia, of course, significant because I think it's generally regarded that the countries here in the GCC at least are united. And unless
Saudi changes its position and becomes a first mover for escalation, let's say the other countries are unlikely to go it alone.
So their significance and, of course, practically, at a practical level, the airports here in Saudi Arabia are -- pretty much been unaffected. So
for some of those Gulf countries, it's easier in that context for Saudi to host.
But Saudi really emerging as a central player now. That unity that I've been talking about, the unity of position that's been calling out Iran as
breaking international humanitarian law, calling it out when it's striking oil facilities, civilian infrastructure as well, we will probably hear more
of that.
And I think what everyone is keen to hear is, how do these countries interpret president Trump's end goal?
How do they interpret his calls to end the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz?
Which is, of course, a vital interest but, all the while, there have been very, very clear -- and I think we will perhaps hear this again today --
that they haven't -- these countries haven't wanted to get drawn into the war here.
[10:05:00]
They fear that it could spiral down, that things could get worse. Indeed, in the last hour or so, Iran has threatened to escalate strikes against oil
facilities, even on Saudi Arabia's Red Sea. And that would be a significant escalation if that were to happen.
So I think it's holding the nerve, holding the line in unity is the message that I think will emerge here, Becky
ANDERSON: Yes. And one source in the region telling me, Nic, that the Strait of Hormuz will be a key focal point in this meeting as we see
momentum build behind the scenes for a U.S.-based coalition for that body of water.
I mean, there are many countries who haven't come out in support of this U.S.-Israel war with Iran, don't necessarily see it as being legal. But
what is happening in the Strait of Hormuz, of course, has a huge impact on the global economy.
And frankly, whether the Europeans like it or not, the efforts need to be made to ensure that that body of water, that chokehold that is currently
over that Strait of Hormuz, can be loosened somewhat. So it will be interesting to see what comes out of that meeting where you are, absolutely
crucial on that.
And as you say, the wider discussions about what happens next, as we are now a good three weeks into this war, it is unclear how degraded the
Iranian missile stockpiles are and what their ability is to continue to attack these countries around the region.
Oren, what more can you tell us about these Israeli targets in Iran?
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN JERUSALEM BUREAU CHIEF AND CORRESPONDENT: Well, there are two clear and important types of targets that Israel is going after.
One, of course, is Iran's top leadership; Israel saying they have killed Iran's intelligence minister, Esmaeil Khatib, as they simply continue to
work their way down the list of Iranian leadership and making it clear that anyone on that list Israel considers a legitimate target.
In fact, Israel's defense minister, Israel Katz, saying they're even trying to streamline the process of killing Iran's top leadership.
Saying that, if there is an operational opportunity available to target one of Iran's key leaders, then Israel's military commanders have all the
authorities they need to go after those leaders and don't need further authorization or approval. So Israel making clear that it will continue to
strike Iran's top leadership.
But Israeli officials also telling CNN they are now going after Israel's energy infrastructure and that includes electricity infrastructure as well
as gas infrastructure. Crucially, at least at this point, those Israeli officials tell us they're not going after the oil infrastructure, the crude
infrastructure effectively.
And that may be an effort to try to prevent a further spike in gas prices, although it doesn't seem like that's working, from what we're seeing in the
United States. But those officials tell us this is in coordination with the United States at this point.
Meanwhile, media affiliated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps see this as another expansion of the war and a further crossing of red
lines, as they have previously threatened to go after Gulf energy infrastructure if this is the direction of the war.
ANDERSON: To both of you, thank you very much indeed.
This hour on Capitol Hill, the nation's top intelligence officials are testifying in a high-stakes worldwide threats hearing. It's the first since
the war with Iran began. It comes just a day after a senior Trump-appointed intelligence official abruptly stepped down, citing concerns about the
administration's handling of this war.
Stephen Collinson is in Washington for CNN.
Stephen, the language in the region where I am is hardening toward Iran. The strikes, for example, today here in the UAE, now being described as
terrorist attacks. These are enshrined, in international legal language now, reckless and unprovoked attacks.
What do we expect to hear about the Iran war in these hearings today?
STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, there haven't been that many opportunities for lawmakers to question members of the
administration on this war, especially publicly. So I think you're going to see a lot of lawmakers. They want to know what was the intelligence that
the president was presented that led him to war.
There's a renewed controversy here over that question of whether there was an imminent threat to the United States and its interests from Iran before
the president and Israel started the attacks. I think they are going to want to know about the state of what is left of the Iranian leadership.
[10:10:00]
The possibility of uprisings from opposition movements in Iran, which we haven't yet seen so far. But the president said in his initial statement
about this that he wanted to see.
And then there are the specific issues like the Strait of Hormuz. I think lawmakers will want to know what is the Iranian posture around the state.
What is the U.S.' latest understanding of Iran's policy and how much it would take for the United States to get the strait back opened?
All sorts of interesting questions about that. Then there's the issue of those stocks of highly enriched uranium that the Iranians still seem to
have in their nuclear plants; where that is, what it would take to get it out from any U.S. operation.
So these are very pressing questions about the justification and the end game of the war. Many of them, I fear, will probably be addressed mostly in
a closed session of the lawmakers, because obviously a lot of it is going to be classified information.
ANDERSON: It will be interesting to hear from Tulsi Gabbard, who was once, of course, against actions in Iran. I wonder what you make of the current
messaging.
COLLINSON: Yes. Well, Tulsi Gabbard, as you say, was a real anti- interventionist. And that was one of the calling cards for her when she was brought into the Trump administration. She really speaks to that wing of
the MAGA movement and the Republican Party.
She has been somewhat sidelined over the last few months. Indeed, the most we saw of her was when she showed up in Georgia and presided over an FBI
raid taking away voting machines.
A lot of people interpreted that as an attempt to play into president Trump's false claims that the 2020 election was stolen and a way to get
back in his good books.
Gabbard did release a statement on X yesterday after the resignation of Joe Kent, the anti-terror official who was one of her allies. She said that the
president had all the information and the intelligence and it was up to him to make a judgment about whether Iran posed an imminent threat. And he did
so.
So it seems like, for now, she wants to stay in her job. But she's going to come under questioning about how she squares her past anti-interventionism
and skepticism about Iran's nuclear threat with remaining in Trump's cabinet.
ANDERSON: I think it's important that we underscore the split or the difference between what the U.S. and Israel is doing in Iran and their war
with Iran and how the rest of the world is now needing to consider just how they deal with the fallout the consequences.
Which is very specifically the Strait of Hormuz and the attacks that we're seeing around this region. So I do wonder whether it's important that we
just discuss finally how the Trump administration is justifying its actions in Iran.
COLLINSON: Yes. And I think there's a real contrast between the direct, sharp Israeli messaging about why they're going after all these leaders,
what their aims are, which seem to be clearly to create regime change.
And what we're getting from the White House, which is all sorts of vague statements, often contradictory, by the president -- one day this week, for
example, he suggested that the U.S. didn't attack Iran for oil but did so out of habit, which was a very elliptical and rather bizarre way of talking
about this.
In the past, he has talked about trying to engineer an uprising in Iran. That now seems to have slipped away. They're sticking to this idea that
Iran posed an imminent threat and that Trump was the only president in the last 47 years who had the guts to do something about it.
But I think the issue from the United States' point of view is that, when there is fogginess about war aims, there is no clear path to how this ends.
The president has talked about what -- it will end soon but not yet and it will end when "I feel it in my bones."
When all of that happens, you get strategic drift. It has negative consequences domestically on the politics of the war. History shows that
when Americans don't understand what the war is about or think it can't be won, they start to lose faith in the war and the president who's waging it.
So I think the White House really does need to get a grip, not least because there could be big decisions coming up whether to invade Kharg
Island, whether to send troops into the ground around the Strait of Hormuz.
[10:15:04]
These are critical, vital questions with lives on the line. And if there's no clarity of thought from the president, that makes it a lot more
difficult for people to understand and accept.
ANDERSON: It's always good to have you, Stephen. Thank you.
Well, president Trump's pressure campaign to get European allies to help the war effort is fracturing what are already fractured relations.
He's also been lashing out at his NATO on his social media website, calling U.S. assistance to the alliance a, quote, "one-way street" and speculating
about what would happen if the U.S. left the rest of the world to secure the Strait of Hormuz.
Top European leaders remain resolute that the best path to ending this war is a negotiated settlement. Take a listen now to what the British prime
minister had to say in Parliament a few hours ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEIR STARMER, U.K. PRIME MINISTER: We will protect our people in the region. We will take action to defend ourselves and our allies. And we will
not be drawn into the wider war.
I want to see this war end as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker. The longer it continues, the bigger the impact on the cost of living. And that is why
we have intervened to support households with costs of heating oil. The best way forward is a negotiated settlement with Iran giving up any
aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: And Germany's foreign minister also casting doubt on the effectiveness of military action. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHANN WADEPHUL, GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): Yesterday I spoke about the fact that one cannot expect such a military strike to lead
to an orderly change of regime. Those were my words.
I would like to repeat that here and state it clearly. Of course, a change of regime may occur and, given the brutality and ruthlessness of this
regime, it is also desirable that a regime change should occur.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: On the other Israel front, the death toll in Lebanon rising as Israel ramps up attacks against the Iran-backed Hezbollah. Multistory
buildings are being flattened, the streets lined with rubble. The latest is just ahead.
Plus a crackdown on dissent in Iran. How Iranians opposed to the government grapple with aggression from far away and from close to home.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
ANDERSON: Lebanese officials say at least 17 people were killed and dozens of others were injured by the latest round of Israeli strikes. The death
toll includes six people in the capital, Beirut, where an Israeli air strike brought down an entire high-rise building on Wednesday morning.
Israel says the building was used by Hezbollah and sent a warning about 90 minutes before the attack. Well, Lebanon says more than 900 people have
been killed since the conflict. This most recent conflict began on March the 2nd.
[10:20:00]
UNICEF warns more than 100 children are among them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TED CHAIBAN, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNICEF: In Lebanon, over 111 children have been killed, over 330 wounded. That's a classroom of children
every day since the beginning of the war that's either killed or injured in Lebanon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON: The Iranian government explicitly threatening potential protesters who may look to take advantage of the chaos there. It even told
people not to mark yesterday's annual Festival of Fire, which leads up to the Persian new year.
CNN's Jomana Karadsheh now reports on the people caught between foreign bombs and a repressive regime.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Celebrating the death at their oppressor. This is what the world saw coming out of Iran last month
after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed but cloaked in digital darkness, a new wave of brutal suppression was already beginning.
Teenage brothers, Ahmadreza and Amirhossein Feyzi, were among the crowds that poured into the streets on February 28th. This was the car they were
in with their father, honking the horn in celebration. Security forces opened fire on them, according to activists, killing the 15- and 19-year-
old boys.
As the regime faces America and Israel from the sky, it is tightening its grip on the ground, determined to extinguish any ember of an uprising.
Two months ago, it did just that, killing thousands of protesters in the bloodiest crackdown in the history of the Islamic Republic. Iranians still
reeling from the collective trauma of January 8th and 9th, now being warned, take it to the streets and it will happen again.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Our team have their fingers on the trigger.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): The chief of police threatening protesters, they will be treated as the enemy and shot.
The feared Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, promising another massacre of protesters. This time, they say it will strike harder than they did in
January. Messages we've received from Iranians inside the country describe a regime using every tool in its playbook to crush dissent.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Every time you go outside, even just to go to the market, you see machine guns and Dushkas, heavy guns on the streets.
Everyone is afraid of the checkpoints. They are basically the regime's street level enforces.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People are randomly being checked, their phones being searched, being asked questions like, what are you doing out here?
They even arrest and take them for a further investigation.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Video trickling out only a small window into this new climate of fear. Iran is a superpower, they chant. Iranians are proud.
Regime supporters roam the streets at night with a menacing message. They are still here. They are still in control.
State media, like so many times before, has been airing videos of those arrested allegedly confessing to being foreign agents. Text messages like
this one warn those who find a way around the imposed internet blackout will be treated as spies.
This crackdown only expected to get worse, as outside forces that want to overthrow this regime add fuel to the fire.
REZA PAHLAVI, IRANIAN POLITICAL ACTIVIST (through translator): We are now at the decisive stage of our final struggle. Await my final call.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): The Israeli Prime Minister telling Iranians his forces are, "Creating the conditions on the ground for them to rise up."
As the IDF releases video like this showing what it says are attacks on regime checkpoints that have become a major instrument of suppression and
killing the regime's top leadership, one after the other. An uprising seems impossible right now for those who find themselves trapped between two
hells.
From inside their homes, they still defiantly cheer against the regime that, time and time again, has failed to silence the people risking it all
for freedom -- Jomana Karadsheh, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON: I want to get you live to Washington now for a hearing in the U.S. Senate. It is on the subject of worldwide threats. It's the first time
they've had something like this since the war began. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
TULSI GABBARD, U.S. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: -- policies at the U.S.-Mexico border and regionally have served as a deterrent, drastically
reducing illegal immigration.
[10:25:07]
Based on Customs and Border Patrol data, January 2026 monthly encounters are down 83.8 percent compared to January 2025. Encounters declined 79
percent compared to 2024.
The drivers of migration are likely to continue. Potential worsening instability in countries like Cuba and Haiti risk triggering migration
surges and smugglers who have long operated as transnational criminal organizations continue to view chaos as an opportunity for profit and will
continue to look to profit from illegal immigration flows.
These transnational criminal organizations continue to pose a daily and direct threat to the health and safety of millions of U.S. citizens,
primarily and directly by producing and trafficking in illegal drugs. Under President Trump's leadership, fentanyl overdose deaths have seen a 30
percent decrease from September 2024 to September 2025.
President Trump's aggressive efforts to more directly and actively target these transnational criminal organizations and reduce the inflow of
fentanyl precursors has already had a significant impact, which is likely to continue.
We've seen fentanyl potency also decrease, likely due to disruptions to the production supply chain.
U.S. efforts to work with China and India to halt the flow of fentanyl precursor chemicals to North America are demonstrating some improvement but
there is more work to be done, as, sadly, there are still tens of thousands of fentanyl related deaths in America every year.
Mexico-based TCOs, like the Sinaloa Cartel and Jalisco New Generation Cartel, dominate the production and smuggling of fentanyl, heroin, meth and
cocaine into the United States.
Colombia-based TCOs and illegal armed groups, like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia and the National Liberation Army, are responsible for
producing and trafficking large volumes of cocaine to the U.S. and European markets with now some indicators of attempts to expand their market to the
Asia Pacific region.
Colombia remains the world's largest producer of cocaine and Colombian criminal groups have expanded their trafficking relationships with
neighboring Ecuadorian and Brazilian gangs.
As you know, MS-13 is well established in cells within the United States and uses violence to intimidate the Salvadoran diaspora, engaging in
murder, extortion, retail drug trafficking, firearms offenses and prostitution, fueling increased violence and instability.
These and other TCOs continue to present a very tangible and individualized risk of violent crime to everyday Americans and contribute to regional
instability.
As the president increases his focus on counterdrug and counter-cartel pressures, they're likely to seek ways to try to adapt their operations,
including shifting production locations and trafficking routes and methods.
The United States continues to face a complex and evolving threat landscape with the geographically diverse set of Islamist terrorist actors seeking to
propagate their ideology globally and harm Americans, even as Al-Qaeda and ISIS remain weaker today than they were at their respective peaks.
The spread of Islamist ideology in some cases led by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood poses a fundamental
threat to freedom and the foundational principles that underpin Western civilization.
Islamist groups and individuals use this ideology for recruiting and financial support for terrorist groups and individuals around the world and
to advance their political objectives of establishing an Islamist caliphate, which governs based on sharia.
There are increasing examples of this in various European countries and President Trump's designation of certain Muslim Brotherhood chapters as
foreign terrorist organizations is a mechanism to secure Americans against this threat.
In response to setbacks to their capabilities of conducting large-scale complex attacks, Islamist terrorist groups have shifted toward focusing on
executing information operations to spread propaganda and inspire or enable individuals located in or with access to the West.
U.S. counterterrorism efforts primarily in Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and Syria in 2025 were instrumental in removing key terrorist leaders and operatives
degrading the ability of Al-Qaeda and ISIS to quickly reconstitute its leadership and plan large-scale attacks against the homeland and U.S.
interests abroad.
Strict U.S. border enforcement measures and increased deportations of individuals with suspected links to Islamist terrorists have reduced access
to the homeland and removed some potential sources of future terrorist attacks.
[10:30:02]
Since January, U.S. officials have only had a handful of encounters at our borders with individuals associated with terrorist groups. This is a
positive trend, however our interagency coordinated efforts to identify, locate and remove known or suspected terrorists who are already in the U.S.
continues with vigilance.
In 2025, there were at least three Islamist terrorist attacks in the U.S. law enforcement
disrupted at least 15 U.S. based Islamist terrorist plotters. Roughly half of last year's disrupted plotters had some online contact with Islamist
terrorists inspired by Islamist foreign terrorist organizations abroad.
For example, in the recent attempt to attack a synagogue in Michigan, the shooter had familial ties to a Hezbollah leader. Al-Qaeda and ISIS pose the
biggest threat to U.S. interests overseas in parts of Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, where these groups operate.
They will continue to exploit political instability and ungoverned territory as they seek to rebuild their capabilities and leadership. Al-
Qaeda probably has between 15,000-28,000 members worldwide, while ISIS likely has between 12,000 and 18,000 members.
Africa has become a focal point for the global Sunni jihadist movement, where their largest and most violent affiliates and branches are active. In
the Middle East, AQAP in Yemen, ISIS-K in South Asia and ISIS in Syria are among the most likely groups conducting external plotting.
ISIS in Syria is likely seeking to rebuild its ranks, expand support networks and solicit funds.
By reengaging with and recruiting from the likely hundreds of ISIS detainees and thousands of ISIS-linked women and children who escaped or
were released from prisons and displaced persons camps previously run by the Syrian Democratic Forces in northeast Syria.
Meanwhile, state actors present a risk broader in scope by seeking new capabilities in kinetic and cyber warfare. The U.S. secure nuclear
deterrent continues to ensure safety in the homeland against strategic threats.
However, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and Pakistan have been researching and developing an array of novel, advanced or traditional
missile delivery systems with nuclear and conventional payloads, that put our homeland within range.
The IC assesses that threats to the homeland will expand collectively to more than 16,000 missiles by 2035, from the current assessed figure of more
than 3,000 missiles.
The IC assesses that China and Russia are developing advanced delivery systems meant to be capable of penetrating or bypassing U.S. missile
defenses. North Korea's ICBMs can already reach U.S. soil and it is committed to expanding its nuclear arsenal.
Pakistan's long-range ballistic missile development potentially could include ICBMs with the range capable of striking the homeland. Iran has
previously demonstrated space launch and other technology it could use to begin to develop a militarily viable ICBM before 2035, should Tehran
attempt to pursue the capability.
However, these assessments will be updated as the full impact of Operation Epic Fury's devastating strikes on Iran's missile production facilities,
stockpiles and launch capabilities is determined.
These nations will likely seek to understand U.S. plans for advanced missile defense for the homeland, probably for the purpose of shaping their
own missile development programs and assessing U.S. intentions regarding deterrence.
Shifting to the cyber domain, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and non- state ransomware groups will continue to seek to compromise U.S. government and private-sector networks as well as critical infrastructure to collect
intelligence, create options for future disruption and for financial gain.
China and Russia present the most persistent and active threats and are continuing their R&D efforts. North Korea's cyber program is sophisticated
and agile. In 2025 alone, North Korea's cryptocurrency heists probably stole $2 billion which is helping to fund the regime, including further
development of its strategic weapons programs.
Financially or ideologically motivated nonstate actors are becoming bolder, with ransomware groups shifting to faster, high-volume attacks that are
harder to identify and mitigate.
Innovation in the field of artificial intelligence will likely accelerate the threats in the cyber domain. It will increasingly shape cyber
operations with both cyber operators and defenders using these tools to improve their speed and effectiveness.
For example, in August 2025, cyber actors used an AI tool to conduct a data extortion operation against international government, healthcare and public
health, emergency services sectors and religious institutions in the Arctic.
Russia and, to a lesser extent China, aim to strengthen their presence in the region through increased maritime trade, natural resource extraction
and military activity.
[10:35:00]
Russia, which has the longest coastline in the Arctic, has long sought recognition of its "polar great power" status and is deploying more
military forces and building new permanent infrastructure.
China, though not an Arctic country, is engaged in more limited efforts in the region to advance its strategic and economic interests. On the
technology front, artificial intelligence capabilities are rapidly advancing and changing the threat landscape.
As this is a defining technology that enables computers and machines to simulate human learning comprehension, problem solving, creativity and
autonomy, it will be critical to ensure that humans remain in control of how AI is used.
And of the machines that may threaten to autonomously violate the interests of the American people across all domains.
China is the most capable competitor in this field and aims to displace the U.S. as the global AI leader by 2030. Even if China does completely
overtake the U.S. AI adoption at scale across the spectrum of usage poses risks.
AI has the potential to aid in weapons and systems design and has been used in recent conflicts to influence targeting and streamline decision-making,
underscoring the risk and likely threats that could manifest on the battlefield.
Early developers in quantum computers will give countries an extraordinary technological advantage over others to quickly process national security
information and break current encryption methodology used to protect sensitive finance, health care and government information.
The global security landscape is volatile and complex, with armed conflict growing more common and posing potential threats against U.S. interests.
Strategic competition and regional and smaller powers becoming more willing to use force to pursue their interests heightens the risk of conflict.
The space domain is becoming increasingly contested, with China and Russia developing counterspace capabilities to challenge U.S. space efforts. The
threat of nuclear proliferation and advancing chemical and biological warfare capabilities continues to grow.
In alignment with President Trump's national security strategy, this report will look at unique threats across major regions in the world and how
geography plays a role in how these threat vectors are prioritized.
Our focus turns to our neighborhood, the Western Hemisphere where flagging economies, high crime rates, pervasive organized crime, migration flows,
corruption and narcotics trafficking present a spectrum of risks to U.S. interests and where strategic competitors seek greater influence in the
region to challenge the U.S.
Latin America and the Caribbean almost certainly will see hotspots of volatility in the coming year, with the potential to undermine or distract
some countries from improving living economies and living conditions and tackling illicit drug flows and cartels.
Since Maduro's arrest, we have seen a shift in Venezuela's leadership toward cooperating with the U.S. to open its economy, develop the country's
oil and gas extraction capability and release political prisoners.
The U.S.-Mexico Canada agreement review in 2026 will likely increase uncertainty in many Latin American countries, especially those that rely on
Mexico as an export destination for intermediate goods for manufacture and onward export to the U.S.
China, Russia and Iran are seeking to sustain economic, political and military engagement with Latin America. China's demand for raw materials is
likely to drive continued economic outreach, while Russia likely wants to expand its current security and diplomatic ties with Cuba and Nicaragua.
China aims to elevate its own political, economic, military and technological power to increase its own regional positioning, global
influence and to fend off threats to their interests.
While there are challenging areas where interests diverge, President Trump's diplomatic engagements with President Xi have enabled progress on areas where there are mutual interests and opportunities for win-win
outcomes.
China continues to rapidly modernize its military forces across all domains in pursuit of its goal to achieve "world-class" status by mid-century. This
includes building a force with the aim of being capable of deterring and disrupting U.S. and allied forces in its region and developing the ability
to seize Taiwan by force, if necessary.
However, the IC assesses that China will likely seek to set the conditions for an eventual peaceful reunification with Taiwan, short of conflict.
An increasingly confident North Korean regime remains a source of concern regionally and globally. Its WMD, conventional military capabilities,
illicit cyber activities and demonstrated willingness to use asymmetric capabilities poses a threat to the U.S. and its allies, particularly South
Korea and Japan.
North Korea's partnership with Russia is growing and, in 2025, Kim took steps to improve ties with China, still North Korea's most important
trading partner and economic benefactor, after the relationship had cooled due to Beijing's earlier opposition to Pyongyang's nuclear and missile
tests.
The benefits North Korea receives for its support for Russia in the war against Ukraine have increased North Korean capabilities.
[10:40:04]
As their forces have gained combat experience in 21st century warfare along with equipment.
In 2024, North Korea deployed more than 11,000 troops to Russia to support combat operations in Kursk. Pyongyang continues to develop and expand its
strategic weapons programs, including missiles that can evade U.S. and regional missile defenses and continuing to work to increase its nuclear
warhead stockpile.
It maintains biological and chemical weapons capabilities which it might use during a conflict or in an unconventional or clandestine attack.
Russia retains the capability to selectively challenge U.S. interests globally by military and non-military means. The most dangerous threat
posed by Russia to the U.S. is an escalatory spiral in an ongoing conflict such as Ukraine or a new conflict that led to direct hostilities including
the deployment of nuclear weapons.
Putin continues to invest in Russia's defense industrial base and investment in novel capabilities poses more of a threat to the U.S.
homeland and forces abroad than his country's conventional weapons.
Russia has advanced systems, including counterspace weapons, hypersonic missiles and undersea capabilities designed to negate U.S. military
advantage. Moscow also relies on other tools to exert pressure using gray zone tactics to further its goals and compete below the level of armed
conflict.
Russia is also building extensive counterspace capabilities to contest U.S. space dominance. Its development of a nuclear counterspace weapon poses the
greatest single threat to the world's space architecture.
During the past year, Russia has maintained the upper hand in its war against Ukraine. U.S.-led negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv are ongoing.
Until such an agreement is met, Moscow is likely to continue fighting a war of attrition with the aim of degrading Kyiv's ability and will to resist.
In the Middle East, conflict and instability will shape security, political and economic dynamics in a variety of ways.
The U.S.-led Operation Epic Fury is advancing fundamental change in the region that began with Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023 and
continued with the 12-day war last year, resulting in weakening Iran and its proxies.
The regime in Iran appears to be intact but largely degraded by Operation Epic Fury. Its regional power projection capabilities have been destroyed,
leaving limited options. Prior to the current operations, Iran's strategic position had been significantly
degraded.
The U.S.-led maximum pressure campaign and snapback of European sanctions added additional pressure to an already bleak Iranian economy, resulting in
mass protests earlier this year that Tehran suppressed by killing thousands of protesters.
Even if the regime remains intact, internal tensions are likely to increase as Iran's economy worsens.
Even so, Iran and its proxies remain capable of and continue to attack U.S. and allied interests in the Middle East. If a hostile regime survives, it
will seek to begin a years-long effort to rebuild its missiles and UAV forces.
As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild
their enrichment capability. The entrances to the underground facilities that were bombed have been buried and shuttered with cement.
We continue to monitor for any early indicators on what position the current or any new leadership in Iran will take with regard to authorizing
a nuclear weapons program.
China, Russia and North Korea see the United States as a strategic competitor and potential adversary. Iran has long viewed the U.S. as an
adversary and is engaged in active conflict with the U.S.
As of this writing, these four countries are likely to continue their selective cooperation with each other, which could bolster their individual
capabilities and threats to U.S. interests more broadly.
However, currently, these relationships are primarily bilateral on selective issues and depend on broader circumstances, divergent sovereign
interests and, in some cases, concerns over directly confronting the U.S. These factors are likely to constrain their relationships.
Finally, conflicts on the continent of Africa are likely to persist through 2026 due to poor governance, economic demands and external support.
Tensions continue between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which could rapidly accelerate to conflict.
Contentious national elections in Somalia could distract the federal government away from counterterrorism actions against Al-Shabaab, which
continues to conduct terror attacks while providing funding and propaganda support to other elements of Al Qaeda in Yemen.
The civil war in Sudan continues even as external negotiations occur.
[10:45:00]
ISIS in West Africa and the Sahel have increased the intensity of their attacks against local security forces expanding their areas of operation
and moving closer to cities.
With the U.S. presence, the excesses that African governments will likely use their wealth in critical minerals to seek partnerships that deliver
them meaningful benefit, concurrent conflicts and crises across the continent will continue to put U.S. citizens at risk and cause further
instability.
In closing, as the leaders of the intelligence community, we remain committed to providing the president and policymakers with timely,
unbiased, relevant intelligence to inform decisionmaking and to ensure the safety, security and freedom of the American people. Thank you.
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): Thank you, Director Gabbard.
General Adams, Camden, Arkansas is the home of brand new production lines for the Israeli missile defense interceptors.
Could you please explain how critical Arrow and Iron Dome systems being built in Camden are for not only Israel's defenses but the defense of
hundreds of thousands of American citizens and troops in the region?
LT. GEN. JAMES ADAMS, DIRECTOR, U.S. DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Chairman Cotton, thank you for that question. And I have to say that the Arrow
system and the Iron Dome system are critical defensive systems that prevent adversary power projection from impacting the targets and the friendly
areas in Israel.
The Arrow system itself is the high altitude primarily against MRBMs and it's proven to be very effective against those systems. The Iron Dome is
more of a closer-in system, protecting against rockets and things of that nature.
But the combination of those two with U.S. systems creates a shield to prevent those attacks from the Iranians impacting key areas in areas where
they're protecting.
COTTON: Thank you, General Adams.
I was recently in Camden with Secretary Hegseth as part of his Arsenal of Freedom tour and they are greater Camden's (ph) who do great work to keep
our nation safe.
General Hartman, we've often spoken about our pressing need for more cybersecurity manpower and part-time formation, such as the Arkansas Air
National Guard's 223rd Cyber Space Operations Squadron are a great way to grow the force.
What recommendations do you have to grow these cyber protection teams and develop more capacity for local and national missions?
LT. GEN. WILLIAM HARTMAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY: Chairman Cotton, thanks for the question.
I did hear a little bit about the great team in Arkansas there and I know 855 CPT operates from that formation. And so for us, certainly looking at a
number of different initiatives, one ensure that we can share all of the relevant top secret classified information and other indications and
warning that the organizations need.
But I will tell you, I'm an advocate for an ability to establish some sort of joint reserve cyber organization and so that, at CYBERCOM, we can ensure
that those organizations have all of the advanced training that they need, to ensure that those organizations have access to all of the intelligence
that they need.
And to ensure that we control some level of funding at both CYBERCOM and NSA that can be used to mobilize those personnel to handle the most
difficult problems that we're faced with.
And we have been working with Congress on some of that language and the department and we appreciate it, sir.
COTTON: Thank you, General Hartman.
As I said in my opening, we only have this one public hearing a year, even though the committee hears from each of you several times throughout the
year in classified settings.
So we don't often have a chance to tell the American people what great work their intelligence professionals are doing for them.
So Director Ratcliffe, could you take the opportunity to maybe join in the excellent briefings that Secretary Hegseth and General Kaine have provided
on a regular basis over the last couple months on the military aspects of both the Maduro raid and Operation Epic Fury to explain the CIA's
contributions to those operations?
JOHN RATCLIFFE, DIRECTOR, U.S. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Thank you, Senator.
You know, last year when I was here -- and in my confirmation I promised you all and you had all asked for a more aggressive CIA, one that was
focused on core mission, getting back to the business of stealing secrets to be able to provide our policymakers with a decisive strategic advantage.
That would allow and advance and contribute to foreign policy and national security successes. To the credit of the CIA workforce, the CIA has
delivered. Some of those successes have been very public.
As you mentioned, Senator, Operation Midnight Hammer, Operation Absolute Resolve, flawless military operations like that are hostage to a flawless
intelligence picture.
[10:50:09]
And the CIA, as you know from classified briefings, contributed in myriad ways to the success of that.
But what I would say to you is those successes are just emblematic of the phenomenal progress and success, really by every measure, every metric,
every standard across every national security space.
With regard to the work of the CIA, Senator, you mentioned some of it in your opening. The increase of our asset stable and our human sources up by
25 percent. Our FI collection across the board, our foreign intelligence collection, up by 25 percent overall. And in important categories like
China, for instance, up 100 percent.
In areas like tech and AI, up 45 percent. On the counter narcotics front, our operations up by 70 percent. And with regard to counterterrorism, those
are classified numbers that I'll share with you in the classified portion of this hearing. But they're off the charts good.
The best way I can summarize it, Senator, is I had a 32-year veteran of the agency retire this year.
And he said to me, "I hate to go. I don't know if this is the best year that the CIA's ever had but it's the best year I can ever remember."
And I think that reflects the current morale of the -- of the CIA. It's a workforce that knows it's doing a great job. It's know it's -- it knows
that it's being allowed to do what they signed up to do, which is provide that decisive strategic advantage to our country for great successes that
everyone can see.
So I thank you for the opportunity to let me recognize the CIA workforce.
COTTON: Thank you.
Director Ratcliffe, I want to address one specific threat from Iran, the threat of an intercontinental missile, which is really just the combination
of two technologies, one thrust to get something into space and a reentry vehicle to get it back to Earth.
Iran has always had a space launch program, which is flimsy cover for the first part of that intercontinental missile program. I haven't seen any
Iranian astronauts in space lately. And second, they have medium-range ballistic missiles, which already have a reentry vehicle.
So if you crudely married those two technologies together, I've heard some analysts say that Iran could have had a functioning intercontinental
missile to threaten the United States in as few as six months.
Would you agree with that assessment?
RATCLIFFE: Well, you're right to be concerned about Iran's development of longer range ballistic missiles, Senator. If Iran were allowed to develop
at the IB -- IRBM ranges, which is 3,000 kilometers, it would it would threaten most of Europe.
And yes, as you mentioned, we know that Iran is gaining experience in these larger, more powerful booster technologies through its so-called space
launch vehicle program. If left unimpeded, yes, Senator; they would have the ability to range missiles to the continental U.S.
It's one of the reasons why degrading Iran's missile production capabilities that is taking place right now in Operation Epic Fury is so
important to our national security.
COTTON: Thank you.
Vice Chairman.
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA), RANKING MEMBER, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Gabbard, the whole country knows that you were recently involved in a FBI operation to seize ballots in Fulton County, Georgia. Yet this was
despite the fact that the warrant showed no foreign interference or nexus.
As a matter of fact, the warrant was based entirely on conspiracy theories that have already been examined and rejected repeatedly.
Now where is the authority for you to involve yourself in a domestic law enforcement activity?
GABBARD: Thank you, Vice Chairman. I appreciate the question.
As you know, I've addressed every issue you've raised in detail in a letter but I'm grateful for the opportunity to do it in this forum. As you stated,
Congress provided, by statute, ODNI with the responsibility of election security and counterintelligence in 2021.
As you also know, ODNI has purview and --
(CROSSTALK)
WARNER: Could you -- I know the history very well.
But could you just --
(CROSSTALK)
GABBARD: I am addressing the question.
ODNI also has purview and overview over two domestic-related agencies, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, both of which have purview
over election security responsibilities to ensure the integrity of our elections.
I want to correct one of your statements that you've made multiple times, which is false. I did not participate in a law enforcement activity nor
would I, because that does not exist within my authorities.
(CROSSTALK)
WARNER: You were present on the scene.
[10:55:00]
(CROSSTALK)
WARNER: Are the photos, are the photos of you --
GABBARD: I was at Fulton County, sir, at the request of the president and to work with the FBI to observe this action that had long been awaited. I
was not aware of what was in the war and what was not --
(CROSSTALK)
WARNER: And what was the president's specific request for you to go to?
What was the specific request that was made by the president for you to show up in Fulton County?
GABBARD: -- to go and observe the FBI's activities on this issue.
WARNER: So why when you --
GABBARD: -- look at the fort, your questions --
WARNER: Do you have the answer why the president was knowing about this affidavit before it was even served?
GABBARD: I'm not aware that the president knew about an affidavit before it was served.
WARNER: Then why was he sending you to Fulton County?
GABBARD: This occurred the day that the FBI had it approved, their warrant approved by a local judge, and they began to execute this.
(CROSSTALK)
GABBARD: To address your question, sir, about the foreign nexus question, in order for us to better understand the vulnerabilities in our election
systems that may exist today as we look to 2026 -- and, yes, we are very focused on trying to make sure that this election is one that the American
people have --
(CROSSTALK)
WARNER: Director Gabbard, let me -- I've got a number of questions.
(CROSSTALK)
WARNER: Director Gabbard, I have a number of questions. Let me ask my next question, please.
You have not provided any of the required reports or briefings to this committee on foreign interference. This is the first threat assessment
since 2017 that didn't even mention foreign interference. Last year when you were in -- already confirmed, it mentioned it at high level.
Are you saying there is no foreign threat to our elections in the midterms this year?
GABBARD: As I stated in the outset of my remarks, this year's Annual Threat Assessment matches the prioritization of threats --
WARNER: Please answer the question, yes or no.
Is there foreign threat interference to our elections this year?
GABBARD: -- laid out.
WARNER: Are there foreign --
GABBARD: Please allow me to answer the question, sir. The intelligence community has been and continues to remain focused on any collection and
intelligence products --
(CROSSTALK)
GABBARD: -- that show a potential foreign threat for those who are --
WARNER: So, so far, there has been none then because you've made no report.
Excuse me, ma'am. If you want to ask the questions, you should have stayed in Congress. Please answer the questions.
GABBARD: I didn't ask you a question, sir. I'm trying to answer your questions.
WARNER: So you're saying the failure to provide any reports or the failure to have any mention of a Foreign Threat Assessment, I would draw the
conclusion there must be no foreign threat to our elections in 2016.
So that brings me a question that I have for both you, ma'am, and director Patel. There are reports that, in 2020, the president was preparing an
executive order to potentially seize ballots or bring in federal forces.
There is a published report that there is a similar EO being drafted right now about 2026, citing China.
Director Patel, do you have any knowledge of that draft EO?
KASH PATEL, DIRECTOR, U.S. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: Thank you, vice chairman. I do not, sir.
WARNER: Director Gabbard, do you have any?
GABBARD: I do not.
WARNER: Thank you. Let me move to Iran now. I understand and I appreciated, director Gabbard, your comments yesterday about the --
agreeing that the president has sole authority, I guess in his bones, to declare whether something is an imminent threat.
I didn't agree with your friend, Mr. Kent, but I didn't -- again, I agreed with him yesterday on the fact that there was no imminent threat.
I guess what I'm concerned about, one thing is, even in your printed testimony today on page six and your last paragraph on page six, as a
result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There's been no efforts to try to rebuild their enrichment
capability.
You omitted that paragraph from your oral opening.
Was that because the president had said there was an imminent threat two weeks --
(CROSSTALK)
GABBARD: No, sir, I recognized that the time was running long and I skipped through some of the portions --
WARNER: You chose to --
(CROSSTALK)
WARNER: -- you chose to --
GABBARD: -- delivered remarks.
WARNER: -- you chose to omit the parts that contradict the president. The president continues to say as well that, you know, he had no idea; he was
shocked that the Iranians had moved to take over the Strait of Hormuz.
Did you provide any intelligence that would say that it would be -- that it was not likely that the Iranians would try to move on the strait?
GABBARD: I'm not aware of those remarks and I think those of us here at the table can point to the fact that, historically, the Iranians have
always threatened to leverage their control over --
WARNER: Why would the president say he was amazed or -- ?
GABBARD: I'm not aware of those remarks.
WARNER: What about the comments the president made that -- thought that he was surprised; again, reports that Iran struck the adjacent Gulf states.
GABBARD: Again, I'm not aware of those remarks. We have --
(CROSSTALK)
WARNER: Well, let me ask you this.
Did you -- did you brief the president?
Did you brief the president?
GABBARD: (INAUDIBLE).
WARNER: Did you brief the president, if he starts a war of choice, that the likely result would be that Iran would strike --
END
