Pentagon tells Congress no intelligence showed Iran planned to strike U.S. first, sources say

Summary

Pentagon officials told congressional staff in closed-door briefings that intelligence agencies had not assessed Iran was preparing to attack U.S. forces before Washington launched large-scale strikes, according to sources. The disclosure complicates a key public justification for the campaign and comes as the conflict has already resulted in U.S. casualties and political backlash.

WASHINGTON, March 2, 2026 — Administration officials told congressional staff in classified briefings on Sunday that there was no intelligence indicating Iran was preparing to strike U.S. forces before U.S. and Israeli operations began, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

The disclosure appeared to complicate one of the central rationales publicly cited for the military campaign ordered by President Donald Trump.

Briefings on Capitol Hill

Pentagon officials briefed Democratic and Republican staff from multiple national security committees in the House and Senate for more than 90 minutes, according to a White House spokesperson.

According to the sources, officials emphasized that Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities and its network of regional proxy forces still pose a persistent threat to U.S. personnel and interests. However, they said intelligence did not show Tehran was preparing an imminent strike on U.S. forces.

Publicly, senior administration officials had said the president acted in part due to concerns Iran could launch a pre-emptive attack. One official previously said Trump did not want to “sit back and allow American forces in the region to absorb attacks.”

Trump has said the campaign is intended to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, constrain its missile programme and neutralise threats to the United States and its allies. He has also called for political change in Iran.

Democrats call it a “war of choice”

Democratic lawmakers have criticised the decision to launch the strikes, describing the conflict as a “war of choice” and questioning the administration’s reliance on military action over diplomacy.

Oman, which had been acting as a mediator before the escalation, had said diplomatic talks still showed signs of progress prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

Trump has argued that Iran was approaching the capability to threaten the United States directly, though he has not presented public evidence. Sources familiar with intelligence assessments have previously said such claims were not supported by available classified reporting.

U.S. casualties reported

The debate over the campaign’s justification comes as the U.S. military confirmed American casualties.

U.S. Central Command said three U.S. service members were killed and five seriously wounded, while several others sustained minor injuries, including shrapnel wounds and concussions.

U.S. forces have struck more than 1,000 Iranian targets since major combat operations began, according to the military. The campaign has included B-2 stealth bombers deploying 2,000-pound bombs against fortified underground missile facilities.

Public opinion

A national poll conducted Sunday showed 27% of Americans approved of the strikes, 43% disapproved and 29% said they were unsure, underscoring a divided domestic response.

Why This Matters

• Policy credibility: Discrepancies between intelligence assessments and public justifications could shape congressional oversight and future authorisation debates.
• War powers debate: Lawmakers may push for greater scrutiny over executive authority to initiate military action.
• Geopolitical escalation risk: Questions over intent can complicate diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the conflict.
• Market implications: Political uncertainty in Washington often adds volatility to global markets during conflicts.

FAQs

Q1. Did intelligence show Iran planned to attack the U.S.?

According to sources familiar with the briefings, officials said intelligence did not indicate an imminent Iranian attack on U.S. forces.

Q2. What justification did the administration give publicly?

Officials cited broader threats from Iran’s missile programme and regional proxies, as well as concerns about potential future attacks.

Q3. Have there been U.S. casualties?

Yes. The U.S. military confirmed three service members were killed and five seriously wounded.

Q4. How extensive are the strikes?

U.S. forces say they have targeted more than 1,000 sites, including missile and military infrastructure.

Q5. How are Americans reacting?

Polling shows public opinion divided, with more respondents disapproving than approving of the strikes.