Ex-CIA Officer Claims US Decision Made to Attack Iran Early Next Week

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou claims a final decision has been made for the United States to militarily strike Iran as early as next Monday or Tuesday, despite public diplomatic deadlines. He reveals the US has already begun strategic movements of military personnel across bases in the Middle East in preparation. Kiriakou outlines internal US political divisions, naming JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard as leading anti-war voices, with Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth reportedly leading the pro-war faction. The Iranian mission to the UN has warned that all US bases and assets in the region would be legitimate targets in the event of an attack.

Key Points: US Decision to Attack Iran Imminent, Claims Former CIA Officer

  • Final US strike decision reportedly made
  • Military personnel being repositioned in Middle East
  • Public deadlines seen as tactical distraction
  • Internal US political battle lines over intervention
  • Iran warns all US assets are legitimate targets
4 min read

''Decision made to attack Iran'': Former CIA officer John Kiriakou claims US strike imminent

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou reveals a US decision to strike Iran is made, with military movements underway. Key political factions named.

"a decision has been made to attack Iran on Monday or Tuesday - John Kiriakou"

Washington, DC, February 22

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou has claimed that a final decision has been reached by the United States to initiate a military strike against Iran early next week.

Speaking on the Julian Dorey Podcast, Kiriakou revealed that a fellow former intelligence official recently at the White House suggested that an attack could be imminent, despite public deadlines given by the administration.

Revealing the sensitive nature of the discussions, Kiriakou said, "I have a friend, former CIA officer, who was at the White House this morning talking to his friends, and he says that a decision has been made to attack Iran on Monday or Tuesday."

He noted that while the President yesterday publicly offered a 10-day window for the Islamic Republic to accept a comprehensive proposal, such timelines are often used as a tactical distraction.

"The president yesterday gave the Iranians 10 days to accept our proposals for an end to their ballistic missile programme, an end to their uranium enrichment programme, an end to supporting groups in the Middle East like Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis. But he's done this before," Kiriakou observed.

Explaining the strategy behind the shifting deadlines, he remarked, "Well, he'll give you 10 days, he'll give you two weeks, and then he'll just attack two days into it. He thinks that that keeps people off balance."

Validating these claims of imminent action, the United States has already commenced the strategic movement of military personnel stationed at various installations across the Middle East for undisclosed missions. This redeployment comes amidst growing anxieties regarding a potential direct military conflict with the Islamic Republic.

As reported by The Jerusalem Post, a recent disclosure from The New York Times indicates that hundreds of servicemen have been transferred from the Al Udeid base in Qatar. Similar logistical shifts have been identified across a network of American facilities in Bahrain, the headquarters of the Navy's 5th Fleet, as well as in Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates.

Government officials are reportedly apprehensive that the 30,000 to 40,000 US troops currently deployed within the region could serve as the primary target of the Islamic Republic in the event of an all-out war. Military experts suggested that such a confrontation would differ drastically from the strike on Al Udeid in June 2025, during which Iranian authorities provided the US with advance notice.

The Jerusalem Post highlighted a stern warning from the Iranian mission to the UN, which stated that, in case of an American attack, "all bases, facilities, and assets of the hostile force in the region would constitute legitimate targets."

In light of these threats, the US is reportedly augmenting its regional posture by shifting air defence systems into the Middle East to safeguard its forces. This defensive buildup accompanies a decision to maintain two aircraft carriers at a significant distance from Iranian territory to ensure they do not become easy targets for retaliation.

The former CIA officer also detailed the internal political divisions driving this escalation, identifying key figures on both sides of the intervention debate. "He said that there are battle lines, that the anti-war forces are JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard," Kiriakou stated, adding that the pro-war faction is reportedly "led by Marco Rubio and includes Pete Hegseth and now the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Kiriakou expressed surprise at the inclusion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the pro-interventionist camp, noting a significant departure from historical military caution. However, he pointed out that recent leadership changes at the Pentagon have reshaped the military's stance.

"Trump has replaced all of the Joint Chiefs this year, this past, in the past 12 months, which I had forgotten," Kiriakou explained. "He promoted people that he knew would be politically loyal."

While the Trump administration officially remains dedicated to seeking a diplomatic resolution, several insiders believe that current offers from Tehran are not enough to deter military strikes. The Jerusalem Post further indicated that internal planning has become increasingly granular and ambitious, as the President has recently floated the idea of regime change in the Islamic Republic.

The discussion also touched upon the potential timing of recent government disclosures, including the anticipated release of UFO-related documents, as a potential distraction. Kiriakou agreed, "Probably in part, yeah. About them saying they're going to release the UFO files last night, which I've wanted released forever, but the timing."

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

S
Sarah B
As someone living in Delhi, my first thought is for the safety of Indian citizens and diaspora in the Gulf region. We have millions of hardworking people there. The MEA should be on high alert to ensure their security and evacuation plans if needed.
R
Rohit P
The timing feels off. Releasing UFO files as a distraction? Sounds like a plot from a Bollywood movie. But seriously, if this is true, it shows a complete failure of diplomacy. War should always be the last resort, not a political tool.
P
Priya S
India has worked hard to maintain good relations with both the US and Iran for our energy security. A conflict puts us in a very difficult diplomatic position. We need a strong, independent foreign policy that prioritizes our national interest above all.
A
Aman W
While I understand the concerns about Iran's activities, a direct military strike seems like a massive escalation. The region is already unstable. This could spill over and affect stability in our own neighborhood, which we absolutely cannot afford.
K
Karthik V
Respectfully, we should be cautious about reports from a single former officer. The media often sensationalizes. Let's wait for official confirmation. India's stance should be based on verified facts and a clear assessment of how it impacts Chabahar port and our connectivity projects.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50