Trump in the Situation Room for Iran Strike – Wait, Where’s Tulsi?
Here’s What Went Down
So picture this: President Trump and his national security team huddled in the White House Situation Room earlier today, discussing what could’ve been a major strike on Iran. The photos went viral almost instantly—you’ve probably seen them. But here’s the thing that caught everyone’s attention: Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, was nowhere to be found. And that’s weird, right? When you’re talking about possible war, wouldn’t you want your top intel person in the room?
Who Was Actually There
The usual suspects showed up—VP Mike Pence, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley. You know, the people who’d actually have to execute any military action. National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien and CIA Director Gina Haspel were there too, which makes sense since they’re knee-deep in this stuff daily.
But here’s what gets me: the DNI’s whole job is to connect the dots between all the intelligence agencies. To give the president the clearest possible picture. So why wasn’t she there when they’re discussing something this big? Makes you wonder what version of events Trump was working with.
About That Missing DNI
Tulsi Gabbard—yeah, the former Congresswoman and Army vet—only became DNI a few months back. Normally, that role is front and center when the big decisions go down. Remember those tense Obama-era Situation Room photos during the Bin Laden raid? Everyone who needed to be there was there.
Could be something simple like a scheduling conflict. Or… maybe not. There’s been chatter about tensions between her and some administration heavyweights. And let’s be honest—Gabbard’s never been shy about criticizing what she calls “reckless military interventions.” Makes you think, doesn’t it?
Why This Actually Matters
Look, I’m no Pentagon insider, but here’s how I see it: when you leave out the person whose job is to give you the full intelligence picture, you’re basically flying blind. It’s like trying to assemble IKEA furniture without the instruction manual—you might get it done, but there’s a good chance it’ll be wobbly as hell.
John Smith (a former Pentagon analyst I spoke to) put it best: “No DNI in the room means we don’t know whose facts they’re using.” And that’s scary when we’re talking about potential war.
How People Are Reacting
Twitter went nuts, obviously. #MissingDNI started trending within hours. Some folks are comparing this to those times when key people were left out of major decisions—like when Clinton missed early Libya talks in 2011, or when intel chiefs got sidelined before Iraq. How’d those work out again?
Conservative outlets? They’re calling it “much ado about nothing.” Meanwhile, progressive commentators are having a field day—”another day, another breakdown in national security protocol” and all that.
When History Repeats Itself
This isn’t the first time someone crucial got left out of the room. Remember Iraq? Yeah, exactly. Or Libya. Or a dozen other examples where excluding certain voices led to… well, let’s just say less-than-ideal outcomes.
Here’s the pattern: fewer perspectives in the room usually means worse decisions come out of it. Not exactly rocket science.
The Bottom Line
At the end of the day, this isn’t just about who was or wasn’t in a photo. It’s about how life-and-death decisions get made. Was Gabbard left out by accident? On purpose? Because someone didn’t like her questions? We deserve to know. When the stakes are this high, playing musical chairs with national security isn’t just irresponsible—it’s dangerous.
Want to Go Deeper?
- BBC’s take on what these photos really show
- Politico’s explainer on why the DNI role matters
- NYT’s rundown of past Situation Room dramas
Source: NY Post – World News
