Looks like CIA analysts are doing beautiful well on Iran.

• Larry C. Johnson by Sonar21 23 May 2026.uncutnews-ch/es-sieht-so-aus-als-wuerden-die-cia-analysten-in-bezug-auf-den-iran-ziemlich-gute-arbeit-leisten

By Larry C. Johnson

Until recently, I had serious concerns that my erstwhile agency, the CIA, was failing to carry out its mission to deliver reliable analyses to the President. It seems my concerns were unfounded. Although there have been respective cases in CIA past erstwhile analysts told the administration what they thought the president wanted to hear, The more common problem is that CIA analysts cross the president's plans and their analysis is ignored. This seems to be the case with Iran today.

Before moving on to the details of what the CIA said about the Iran War, I would like to draw your attention to the fresh message by the chief of naval operations, Daryl Caudle, concerning the Strait of Ormuz:

If we effort to undertake an escort – we have considered it. It is simply a very challenging task in this narrow strait erstwhile it is disputed.

First, we must accomplish a state where the Strait will be open and a ceasefire will be widely adopted before it can be implemented on a large scale.

In my military assessment, ensuring escort protection by the Strait would go beyond the capabilities of the Navy to carry out this task effectively.

The Admiral confirms what I've been talking about for weeks, namely, The United States has no sensible military solution, to prevent Iran from blocking the movement of ships through the Strait without the approval of the Iranian authorities.

Since the beginning of the CIA war, under the supervision of the National Intelligence Director, she has presented 3 war reports to Congress. All 3 reports revealed a coherent and profound discrepancy: CIA and the full intelligence community systematically assessed the war as more difficult, Iran as a more resilient, rocket threat as a larger and fast solution prospects as little optimistic than suggested by Trump's public statements. The gap between secret intelligence and the president's public statements has become 1 of the features defining the political scenery of the conflict.

3 March – Secret information gathering of the full Congress

On March 3, CIA manager John Ratcliffe, along with the Secretary of State Rubio, Secretary of defence Hegseth and General Caine, organized secret briefings first before the full legislature and then before the full home of Representatives. Republican Josh Hawley of Missouri later told reporters that the operation was extended and rapidly evolved. The Democrats seemed clearly afraid after the briefings. Congressman Ami Bera straight confronted Gabbard, asking if she warned Trump that the war with Iran would be so costly and devastating that “our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would look like a picnic”—a message Gabbard made publically before taking office. Gabbard refused to give a substantive answer, stating that while acting as manager of National Intelligence, she was obliged to “leave her individual views behind the door”.

18 March – proceeding of the legislature intelligence committee on global threats

This was the most noisy intelligence proceeding and sparked considerable controversy.

The intelligence chiefs testified that although the Iranian clergy were weakened, they were not deprived of power and that the Mullahs would be able to rebuild their weakened military capabilities in the coming years, despite continued attacks by the US and Israel, this uncovering importantly relativized Trump's claims that Iran's military threat had been mostly eliminated.

The conflict over the atomic program became evident during this hearing. The Global Threat Assessment of 2026 stated that before Operation Epic Fury Iran had "intended to rebuild its atomic infrastructure after it had been destroyed during the 12-day war" – this assessment was importantly different from the written statements of Gabbard submitted to Senators in which it described the Iranian atomic program as "exposed".

On the key question whether Trump was warned about the Strait of Ormuz: erstwhile asked by Senators Angus King and Mark Kelly, neither Ratcliffe nor Gabbard wanted to say whether Trump had requested an assessment of the hazard of blocking the Strait, whether they presented it or what it might have contained. Gabbard stated that the interview “had long believed that blocking the strait was possible.” Ratcliffe refused to answer the question whether he had raised this issue in the days before the war, but confirmed that he had spoken to Trump 10–15 times a week.

Witnesses besides refused to confirm, deny or comment on reports of Russia's increased military and intelligence support to Iran, and to supply information on the impact of the war on the ability of the United States to assist NATO states in defending themselves.

Beginning of May – secret CIA evaluation sent to political decision-makers in the White House

The most crucial and damaging disclosure of intelligence took place in early May erstwhile the "Washington Post" obtained details of a secret CIA analysis that was sent straight to government decision-makers:

The CIA concluded that Iran could withstand the U.S. naval blockade for at least 3 to 4 months before facing major economical difficulties – this conclusion straight contradicted Trump's optimism that the blockade would force Iran's fast surrender.

Regarding rocket possible – in direct contrast to the public claims of Hegseth and Trump – The CIA's evaluation showed that Iran retained about 75% of its pre-war mobile rocket launcher stock and about 70% of its pre-war rocket stock. The evaluation besides showed that Iran managed to restart almost all underground warehouses, repair any damaged missiles, and even complete the assembly of missiles that were at an advanced phase of production at the time of the war. Trump claimed that the Iranian arsenal was "to a large degree decimated" and reduced to "18 or 19%" of pre-war states – This claim was straight contradicted by CIA data.

Regarding the effectiveness of the blockade: US spy satellites have detected evidence of transport of goods and energy across land borders and unofficial routes, suggesting that countries neighbouring Iran have not full cooperated with the US blockade. The CIA has determined that even in the event of a complete blockade Iran has accumulated supplies of essential supplies and fuel for respective months.

Concerning the strategical forecast: the origin in the U.S. informed the ‘Post’ that Iran's ability to last long-term economical difficulties is much greater than the CIA's own assessment suggests, stating: ‘The leaders have become more extremist and assured in their ability to last the political will of the U.S. and to proceed interior repression to thwart possible opposition’. erstwhile Head of Israeli Military Intelligence, as quoted in the evaluation summary, added:

"The war that began as allegedly aimed at overthrowing the government and destroying its atomic program" could end in strategical failure despite military successes due to the fact that "they do not believe they must surrender".

The Hollywood version of CIA interaction with the president is mostly nonsense. This fantastic version assumes that the CIA provides the president with unmistakable facts, and the president is happy to accept the findings of the interview. The reality is different... The president, surrounded by flatterers, has already decided how the communicative will be presented and refuses to accept the CIA's evaluation. Here we see the same pattern: Trump announces the demolition of all Iranian military capabilities, while the CIA presents a diametrically different picture. I've seen it many times.

I am not saying that CIA analyses have always been accurate since the beginning of the war on February 28, but at least analysts do not repeat Trump's meaningless claims of defeating Iran. On the contrary. I believe that Iran's military possible has increased since 28 February with additional military support from China and Russia.

I started the day by talking to Mario Nawfal:

Jim Webb, boy of James H. Webb Jr. – a repeatedly decorated Vietnam War veteran, author and erstwhile U.S. Senator from Virginia – launched a fresh channel on YouTube . Twenty-two years ago, I met Senator Webb at lunch and a private meeting, but that's another story. His son, who besides served in the United States Marine Corps, like his father, is an intelligent and witty young man.

Garland Nixon and I had our Thursday chat. Garland is simply a very generous host:

Source: Looks like CIA analysts are doing beautiful well on Iran.