Intelligence agencies are often blamed when the use of military force has an unexpected or negative outcome. Pundits often argue leaders end up in difficult situations because they are not fully informed, or intelligence agencies got it wrong.Of course, analysis is sometimes wrong. Intelligence failures do happen and can lead to bad decisions and disastrous outcomes. When intelligence agencies fail, as they did before 9/11, the price is steep. But, more often than not, intelligence analysis is very good.Perceived failures are far more likely when political leaders manipulate, ignore or even revise intelligence findings for their own purposes.The Donald Trump administration appears to be playing politics with intelligence regarding the ongoing United States-Israel war in Iran. Tulsi Gabbard, the current director of national intelligence, told U.S. congress last week that the judgment of whether Iran posed an imminent threat belonged to the president. This statement exposes how intelligence was politicized and various agencies ignored in the lead-up to the conflict. Intelligence agenciesModern intelligence agencies resulted from difficult experiences; the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), for example, was only established in 1947, six years after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. had sufficient information to foresee the attack, but the institutions of the time and the interpretations of political leaders failed to put a complete picture together.Dramatized spycraft makes for great entertainment. But the more important work of intelligence agencies is painstakingly collecting and assessing bits and pieces of information of various kinds. Experiences like Pearl Harbor resulted in practices that guard against individual interpretation, force analysts to consider alternatives and subject assumptions to the critical eye of experts. It’s a massive undertaking: between 100,000 and 120,000 people now work in the U.S. intelligence community.The importance of autonomyIntelligence agencies, by the nature of what they examine, often have incomplete data. They must work carefully to avoid bias.These biases range from internal biases, such as the concept of mirror imaging, to external ones, such as political interference. Recent history is replete with examples of political interference in intelligence assessment to their own country’s detriment.Most European analysts did not believe Russia would invade Ukraine in the lead-up to the full-scale Russian assault in 2022. The reason for their incredulity was that given Russia’s stated strategic goals, a direct invasion would compromise the country.Vladimir Putin, however, had isolated himself from objective analysis and continues to do so. Instead, the structure of the Russian state encouraged people who agreed with him rather than those who provided analysis based on expertise.The result is a war entering its fifth year, with a heavy toll on the Russian people and Putin’s dream of a stronger Russia floundering.But the U.S. doesn’t need to look abroad for similar examples. The greatest American strategic folly of the 21st century, the invasion of Iraq, was abetted by the George W. Bush administration’s misrepresentation of CIA assessments that did not further the goal of invading Iraq. In the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, Bush and his inner circle reportedly “cherry-picked” intelligence assessments to justify their case for war, leading them to fall victim to a form of bias known as groupthink.The Iraq invasion has had long-lasting consequences — it still compromises America’s geostrategic position in the Middle East and globally. The invasion, in fact, helped bolster the regional strength of the current U.S. adversary, Iran. In this May 2003 photo, U.S. President George W. Bush declares the end of major combat in Iraq as he speaks aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln off the California coast. The war dragged on for many years after that. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) Failure to learn from the pastIt seems the Trump administration has learned no lessons from the Iraq debacle.In her congressional testimony, Gabbard avoided the topic of whether intelligence agencies agreed that Iran posed an imminent threat to the U.S. Given that Gabbard was under oath, her evasion suggests the White House interpreted information differently or dismissed intelligence reports.Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Centre, recently resigned in protest over the decision to attack Iran.Kent, regardless of his own problematic past, noted in his resignation letter that Trump chose to ignore intelligence briefings that Iran did not pose an imminent threat and instead relied on an inner circle of supporters to justify his decision to wage war.FalloutThe problems emerging from Trump’s attack on Iran are both grave and predictable. Not only has the U.S. failed to bring about regime change — ostensibly one of the reasons to attack — but the government now in charge in Iran is even more radical than the one it’s replaced. Read more: U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran may succeed on a military basis, but at what cost? Furthermore, the world is now facing an energy crisis, which, according to the head of the International Energy Agency, is worse than the oil spikes of the 1970s. This directly stems from Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz.While Trump is trying to frame his decision to attack Iran as a victory, it is likely to be anything but — not only America’s strategic position in the Middle East, but for the intelligence community and global security.The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.