A trio of key Trump administration officials — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt — are in the midst of facing their first major foreign policy test in their high-profile admin roles after Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran and President Donald Trump weighs involving the U.S. in the conflict. 

The trio ascended to their roles with widespread fanfare among many MAGA conservatives, though many critics just months ago questioned if their prior careers prepared them for what was to come. The current flaring tensions with the Islamic Republic could be the final arbiter of which side was correct. 

«President Trump leads from the front, and he has assembled a highly-qualified, world-class team that has helped him achieve numerous foreign policy accomplishments this term,» White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told Fox Digital on Wednesday when asked about the trio’s test on Iran. «The American people trust the President to make the right decisions that keep them safe, and he has empowered his team to meet the moment and advance his foreign policy goals.»

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth 

Secretary Hegseth was one of Trump’s more controversial nominees among critics, as Democrat lawmakers and left-wing pundits slammed Hegseth as unqualified for the job.

IRAN WARNS US JOINING CONFLICT WOULD MEAN ‘ALL-OUT WAR,’ REFUSES DEMANDS TO GIVE UP DISPUTED NUCLEAR PROGRAM

«This hearing now seems to be a hearing about whether or not women are qualified to serve in combat. And not about whether or not you are qualified to be secretary of defense,» Illinois Democrat Sen. Tammy Duckworth said during Hegseth’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in January. «And let me just say that the American people need a secretary of defense who’s ready to lead on day one. You are not that person.» 

«Is Pete Hegseth truly the best we have to offer?» asked Democrat Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, ranking member of the committee. 

President Donald Trump speaks during a roundtable. (Evan Vucci/The Associated Press)

Hegseth battled against claims he would lower previous standards for the secretary of Defense and that his vows to strengthen the military could be bluster once he was in the role and juggling oversight of the entire military. 

«As I’ve said to many of you in our private meetings, when President Trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense,» he said in his opening statement during his confirmation hearing. «He, like me, wants a Pentagon laser focused on warfighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards, and readiness. That’s it. That is my job.» 

Hegseth was confirmed to the role after Vice President JD Vance issued a tie-breaking vote when Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Mitch McConnell joined Democrats in voting against the confirmation. 

Hegseth is an Ivy League graduate and former National Guard officer who was deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay during his military career, which began in 2003. He is also the recipient of a handful of military awards, including two Bronze Stars. He appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday and was pressed about the Israel–Iran conflict. 

«They should have made a deal,» Hegseth said. 

«President Trump’s word means something — the world understands that,» Hegseth said, referring to Trump’s repeated pressure on Iran to make a deal with the U.S. on its nuclear program as the conflict spiraled. 

VANCE DEFENDS TRUMP’S IRAN POSITION AMID ‘CRAZY STUFF ON SOCIAL MEDIA’

«And at the Defense Department, our job is to stand ready and prepared with options. And that’s precisely what we’re doing,» Hegseth continued. 

He did not reveal if the U.S. would assist Israel in the ongoing strikes on Iran, but that the Pentagon is in the midst of preparing options for Trump. 

Any potential U.S. involvement in the strikes could pull the country into war against Iran. 

«I may do it, I may not do it,» Trump said Wednesday on whether he would order a strike on Iran. «I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do.»

Hegseth was among high-profile Trump officials who joined Trump in the White House’s Situation Room as the president and his team closely monitor the flaring conflict. 

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. (John McDonnell/The Associated Press)

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard 

Director of National Intelligence Gabbard is another Trump official who faced an intense confirmation hearing as critics argued she was unqualified for the role. 

Gabbard is a former Democrat who served in the U.S. House representing Hawaii from 2013 to 2021, a former member of the House Armed Services Committee and an Iraq war veteran. However, she had never held a formal position within the intelligence community before serving as director of national intelligence. 

Ahead of her confirmation, Gabbard’s critics slammed her as lacking the qualifications for the role, questioning her judgment over a 2017 meeting with then-Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, labeling her as sympathetic toward Russia, and balking at her previous favorable remarks related to former National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

USS NIMITZ CARRIER STRIKE GROUP SAILING TOWARD MIDDLE EAST AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, US OFFICIAL SAYS

«Those who oppose my nomination imply that I am loyal to something or someone other than God, my own conscience and the Constitution of the United States,» she said during her confirmation hearing. «Accusing me of being Trump’s puppet, Putin’s puppet, Assad’s puppet, a guru’s puppet, Modi’s puppet, not recognizing the absurdity of simultaneously being the puppet of five different puppet masters.» 

She ultimately was confirmed in a 52–48 vote. 

Smoke rises from the building of Iran’s state-run television after an Israeli strike in Tehran, Iran, on Monday, June 16, 2025. (AP Photo)

Gabbard’s March testimony before the Senate dismissing concerns Iran was actively building a nuclear weapon is back under the nation’s microscope after Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran. Israel’s strikes were in direct response to Israeli intelligence showing Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a short span of time. 

Trump was asked about Gabbard’s testimony while traveling back to Washington Monday evening from the G7 summit in Canada, and the president said he did not «care» what Gabbard had to say in previous testimony, arguing he believes Iran is close to building a nuke. 

«You’ve always said that you don’t believe Iran should be able to have a nuclear weapon,» a reporter asked Trump while aboard Air Force One on Monday. «But how close do you personally think that they were to getting one?» 

«Very close,» Trump responded.

«Because Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that the intelligence community said Iran wasn’t building a nuclear weapon,» the reporter continued. 

Trump shot back, «I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having one.»

When Gabbard appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee in March, she delivered a statement on behalf of the intelligence community that included testimony that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. 

«Iran’s cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data,» Gabbard told the committee on March 26. 

The intelligence community «continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003,» she said. She did add that «Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.»

«Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorist actors, which it refers to as its axis of resistance,» she warned. 

However, as critics picked apart Gabbard’s past comments, the White House stressed that Gabbard and Trump are closely aligned on Iran. 

A White House official told Fox News Digital Tuesday afternoon that Trump and Gabbard are closely aligned and that the distinction being raised between Gabbard’s March testimony and Trump’s remarks that Iran is «very close» to getting a nuclear weapon is one without a difference. 

The official noted that Gabbard underscored in her March testimony that Iran had the resources to potentially build a nuclear weapon. Her testimony in March reflected intelligence she received that Iran was not building a weapon at the time but that the country could do so based on the resources it amassed for such an endeavor. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt 

Leavitt is the youngest press secretary in U.S. history, assuming the role at age 27. 

Some liberal critics, such as Joy Behar of «The View,» attempted to discount her appointment when she was first tapped by Trump, and she has since emerged as a Trump administration firebrand during her routine White House press briefings. 

Though Leavitt has overwhelmingly been praised by supporters of the president for her defense of the administration and repeated fiery exchanges with left-wing media outlets during briefings, her tenure has overwhelmingly focused on domestic issues. 

President Donald Trump is in the midst of monitoring the flaring conflict between Israel and Iran. (Alex Brandon/The Associated Press )

Leavitt has kept the nation updated on issues such as mass deportation efforts, Trump’s ongoing list of executive orders affecting policies from transgender issues to electric vehicles, national tragedies such as the terror attack in Boulder targeting Jewish Americans and Trump’s wide-ranging tariff policy that affects foreign nations. 

Though the administration entered office with a war raging between Russia and Ukraine, as well as the ongoing war in Israel after Hamas attacked the country in 2023, the Israel–Iran conflict provides Leavitt with her first major international crisis that could include U.S. involvement. 

Leavitt’s highly anticipated first press briefing since Israel launched its preemptive strikes is scheduled for Thursday. 

Israel’s military campaign in Iran has already produced «enormous achievements,» according to experts tracking the conflict, with many citing the operation as the payoff for years of preparation, battlefield innovation and intelligence development.

Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a leading voice on U.S. policy toward Iran, called Israel’s progress «a resounding military win.»

«They’ve actually dominated the Iranian military,» Dubowitz told Fox News Digital. «They’ve taken out many senior military leaders, the Iranian Air Force, and a significant percentage of missile launchers and ballistic inventory.»

Still, Iran’s retaliation is taking a toll. On Thursday morning, an Iranian missile struck Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba and targeted several major cities, injuring hundreds.  Despite the heavy costs, military experts insist that the IDF continues to hold the upper hand, both tactically and strategically.

IRAN WARNS US JOINING CONFLICT WOULD MEAN ‘ALL‑OUT WAR’

Comparing the scale of success to the Six-Day War, Dubowitz said, «It’s starting to look like 1967, when the Israelis eviscerated five Arab armies. It may take longer than six days, but they’re certainly on that trajectory.»

Hila Hadad-Hamelnik, a strategist at «Mind Israel» think tank and former CEO of the Ministry of Innovation, noted that the success is no accident — it is the result of «years of preparation in every aspect.» From developing long-range strike capabilities to building an unparalleled intelligence apparatus and adapting operational doctrines from Gaza and Lebanon, she said the IDF’s current dominance is a product of both innovation and experience.

«This is not a campaign someone decided to do six months ago,» she said. «This is years of work — in intelligence, in weapons development, in defensive and offensive operations. The methods we tested against Hezbollah — striking command chains quickly and precisely — were studied, refined, and applied here.»

A massive plume of smoke and fire rises from an oil refinery in southern Tehran following reports that an overnight Israeli strike targeted the site on June 15, 2025. (Atta Kenare/AFP)

She pointed to lessons learned in Gaza, especially the importance of rapidly identifying and eliminating rocket launchers before strikes even begin. «We learned through hard fighting that you have to neutralize launchers, not just intercept the missiles. And that doctrine — developed in Gaza where targets are five minutes away — has now been adapted to Iran, with all the complexity that entails.»

ISRAEL SAYS IT HAS AERIAL SUPERIORITY OVER TEHRAN, IRANIAN INTELLIGENCE LEADER KILLED»

Fire and smoke rise into the sky after an Israeli attack on the Shahran oil depot on June 15, 2025, in Tehran, Iran. Iran’s foreign minister said the country would respond «decisively and proportionally» to a wave of attacks that Israel launched beginning in the early hours of June 13. The attacks targeted multiple military, scientific and residential locations, as well as senior government officials.  (Stringer/Getty Images)

Hadad-Hamelnik stressed that Israel’s control over Iranian skies is «stunning … the Air Force is flying over Iran day after day. Drones are holding the skies.»

Smokes raises from a building of the Soroka hospital complex after it was hit by a missile fired from Iran in Be’er Sheva, Israel, Thursday, June 19, 2025. (AP Photo/Leo Correa) (AP Photo/Leo Correa)

Even with the heavy toll taken when Iran’s missiles get through, like the attack against Soroka hospital on Thursday, she credited the country’s defensive systems, like Iron Dome and David’s Sling — systems she helped develop — which intercepted missile salvos with over 90% effectiveness, even amid unprecedented barrages. «This is a war of a different scale, and yet the systems are holding,» she said.

Dubowitz acknowledged that despite massive gains, one key target remains: the Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, buried under a mountain at a Revolutionary Guard base.

A map shows where Iran’s most important nuclear facilities are situated. (Fox News)

«Israel has devastated Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. They’ve eliminated 14 senior nuclear scientists — the ‘Oppenheimers’ of Iran’s program,» he said. «But Fordow remains. And if it’s left standing, Iran can rebuild.»

While Dubowitz clarified that he is not explicitly calling for U.S. military strikes, he said that «President Trump must ensure Fordow is fully dismantled — whether through a diplomatic agreement or, if Iran refuses, a targeted military intervention.»

He outlined three potential paths: «One, Iran shows up for a real deal and the program is dismantled. Two, Trump strikes Fordow. Three, Trump strikes and then negotiates. But either way, it has to end with Iran losing its nuclear weapons capability — not just temporarily, but permanently.»

An Israeli fighter jet takes off for strikes in Tehran. (IDF)

INSIDE ISRAEL’S SECRET WAR IN IRAN: MOSSAD COMMANDOS, HIDDEN DRONES AND THE STRIKE THAT STUNNED TEHRAN

Hadad-Hamelnik believes Israel’s success has created an opportunity for the United States.

«Thanks to the phenomenal achievements of the IDF, the situation is now very clear. If the U.S. were to join at this point, with Fordow as the main remaining target and most assets already degraded, it would not look like getting pulled into a quagmire,» she said. «This is nothing like Ukraine or Afghanistan. There’s an actual path to decisive success, and that can change the political calculus in Washington.»

Dubowitz added that Israel’s offensive struck not only military and nuclear targets, but also Iran’s internal security infrastructure — including state media and the regime’s repressive arms. for that, he said, could open the door for future domestic unrest. «We can’t expect people to protest while missiles are falling. But if Israel continues striking the regime’s tools of repression, space may open for Iranians to return to the streets.»

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Dubowitz, who has spent two decades warning of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, reflected on the moment with cautious hope. «I’m heartened to see the long arm of Israeli justice reach those responsible for such brutal aggression,» he said. 

«This may be a historic opportunity to truly end Iran’s nuclear threat, and perhaps even to support the Iranian people in reclaiming their future,» he added, «There have been incredible achievements, but if Fordow is left standing by President Donald Trump, then it could end up being a Pyrrhic victory.»

Un hombre va a Museo, mira las obras pero no alcanza, mirar no alcanza, hay que documentar, no para mostrarles a otros lo que se ve -hay tantas fotos de las obras online sacadas por buenos fotógrafos- sino para mostrarse allí, no para mostrar la obra sino al espectador. Un hombre va al museo y se quiere sacar una foto con una obra como si fuera una estrella de rock. No sabemos si se ha parado a pensar, a sentir, a entender la obra. Ni él, ni cada uno de nosotros, que hacemos lo mismo. Quizás lo haya hecho, quizá no, pero quiere la foto. Y eso implica una proximidad tal vez no prevista en la obra, o por lo menos no en cualquier obra.

De pronto algo sale mal: la obra es frágil, el espectador tropieza y, ay, la obra se rompe. El incidente ocurrió hace unos días en el museo Palazzo Maffei de Verona, en Italia, y fue un escándalo. La obra en cuestión se llamaba Silla de Van Gogh, una escultura cubierta de cristales Swarovski diseñada por el artista Nicola Bolla en 2022. Por supuesto, la silla de Bolla hace alusión a otra silla, que sí pintó Van Gogh en un cuadro que hoy está en Londres.

El museo demandó al turista. El artista, en cambio, dijo que era “un gesto estúpido (…)” pero que también veía “un lado positivo y artístico”. Y, claro. Alguien que hace arte no puede sino pensar qué significados tiene lo que hizo y lo que pasó con su obra. Pero vamos despacio.

Por lo menos, desde que alguien -solía decirse que Marcel Duchamp, pero ya no estamos seguros- presentó un mingitorio como una obra de arte, las ideas sobre qué decimos cuando a hablamos de arte empezaron a cambiar. Y el arte ya no fue -o tal vez nunca lo haya sido- algo lindo para colgar en el living sino, como decía el crítico ruso Víktor Shklovski, un estímulo para “desautomatizar la mirada”. Desautomatizar la mirada, en fin, es una forma de volver a ver lo que, a fuerza de repeticiones y estereotipos, en la práctica es invisible. Eso pretende hacer el arte. No mimarnos; sí incomodarnos, despertarnos, hacer que valga la pena percibir, hacernos volver a percibir.

El arte es algo cuando nos habla de nosotros, cuando nos toca el corazón y/o nos sacude las neuronas, cuando nos cuenta algo que nos importa. Si no, ¿para qué pasar el tiempo entre pasillos llenos de pinturas cuando viajamos a una ciudad lejana. ¡Con todo lo que hay para ver en las calles!

En estos tiempos de imágenes sin fin y, más, de imágenes virtuales, las obras de arte, las obras famosas, se han convertido en estrellas no solo por lo que muestran sino también por lo que son. Son algo único, valioso, real. Ya lo dijo el filósofo Walter Benjamin, en la década del 30, cuando ni fotocopiadoras había. La obra, sostenía, tenía singularidad irrepetible, una suma de autenticidad, historia y contexto, lo que él llamaba un “aura”. La obra es única. ¿Y sus reproducciones? Buenos, aunque muchos no podamos distinguir el original de una buena copia, las reproducciones no tienen esa aura. No hay a su alrededor equipos de seguridad, no se va a un lugar especial para verlas, esas cosas. Cuanto más cualquiera puede producir algo idéntico al original, más única es la experiencia de ver “la obra”. Por eso las eligieron grupos ecologistas como blancos de “atentados”: sin matar a nadie apuntaban a algo sagrado. A los guardianes de la experiencia del mundo real.

Sin querer, al intentar sentarse en la silla el turista cruzó una línea, la misma de la que se burló René Magritte cuando dibujó una pipa y escribió debajo: “Esto no es una pipa”. Porque, claro, eso no era una silla, era una obra de arte. Por eso -para señalar que lo era- no estaba apoyada por ahí sino instalada en una tarima.

Pero cruzar las líneas entre qué es arte y qué no lo es ha sido una de las tareas del arte contemporáneo. Recuerdo hace años, en la Bienal de Venecia, cuando entré a un pabellón y una señora gateaba por todo el salón mientras una rueda a su alrededor la mirada interesada. Así, difíciles de descifrar, son a veces esas formas del arte llamadas “performances”. De pronto, la señora se chupó el dedo, lo pegó al piso y se levantó triunfante: “¡Encontré el lente!”.

Pero, entonces, ¿qué es una obra de arte? O mejor: ¿qué hace? Podríamos pensar que Nicola Bolla, al llevar a los cristales la silla de Van Gogh nos habló de la fragilidad del artista holandés. Así lo percibimos a Van Gogh, ¿no? Más frágil que el cristal. Alguien se acercó demasiado y, crash.

También podemos entender que lo que quiso hacer Bolla fue mostrar en qué se ha convertido la obra de Van Gogh: del retrato de una humilde silla de paja, el material más común y más rústico del mundo, a cristales delicados, finos, caros. ¡Qué otro mundo que el de Van Gogh este de la millonada que llegaron a costar sus obras (en 1990, el Retrato del doctor Gachet fue vendida por 82,5 millones de dólares). Paja versus cristales de marca. Se entiende.

Eso podía querer decir la obra de Bolla. Pero ahora, destrozada, ¿no significa otra cosa? Yo leo: ya no hay nada sagrado en el mundo en que vivimos. Leo: esto es lo que hacen las redes sociales con lo que solíamos llamar arte. Leo una nueva idea, de la que la silla es material y el turista, un autor involuntario, autor al que le falta algo fundamental, la reflexión, pero que actuó, puso en acto un espíritu de época. No me disgusta.