Trump suggests his ‘naive’ intelligence officials ‘should go back to school’

Trump suggests his ‘naive’ intelligence officials ‘should go back to school’
President of the United States of America, Donald Trump. Photo: Gage Skidmore, Wikimedia Commons

United States President Donald Trump has condemned his intelligence chiefs as “extremely passive and naive”.

Mr Trump made the comments in a series of tweets wherein he slammed US intelligence leaders for contradicting him on foreign policy issues, especially regarding North Korea, Iran and Syria.

The leaders in question included CIA director Gina Haspel and director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. Both organisations said that there was still a nuclear threat from North Korea but that Iran was no longer taking measures to manufacture nuclear missiles.

These findings were the reverse of Mr Trump’s analysis, which claims that Iran is working towards nuclear weaponry while North Korea is pursuing denuclearisation of its arsenal.

In his tweets, Mr Trump asserted that, since he came into office, diplomatic relations with North Korea were at an all-time high, most likely referring to his proposed second meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

This is in contradiction of the CIA’s assertion that North Korea sees its plan to arm itself with a nuclear arsenal as essential to its survival as a state and would be unlikely to pursue denuclearisation.

Last year, the US President scrapped a nuclear deal with Iran and re-imposed sanctions on the country. There was even rumours that he planned military intervention in the country.

Mr Trump also took the chance to defend his call to withdraw US troops from Syria, arguing that ISIS was no longer a threat in the region.

This is not the first time Mr Trump has come into conflict with his own intelligence officials. Former CIA director John Brennan was infamously stripped of his security clearance following his criticism of the President.

Several commentators have brought into question the logic of Mr Trump ignoring the advice of his intelligence agencies regarding major foreign policy developments.

What do you think about it?