A notable moment in American politics unfolds, marked by poor timing.

Former U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii, who transitioned from being a Democratic presidential candidate to becoming a staunch ally of Donald Trump, is set to meet with U.S. senators this week to discuss her nomination for the position of director of national intelligence.

Meanwhile, in Syria, people are desperately searching through prisons for friends and family members who have been unjustly imprisoned and subjected to torture by the regime of former President Bashar al-Assad, who fled the country just last weekend to seek refuge in Russia after a surprising end to his family’s long-standing oppressive rule.

Gabbard needs to clarify her past support for Assad, particularly her skepticism expressed in April 2017 when he was accused of using prohibited chemical weapons against his own people.

This was in direct contrast to American intelligence assessments at the time. President Trump asserted there was “no dispute” regarding the conclusion that Assad’s regime had attacked its citizens with gas.

On NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Trump was asked about Gabbard’s secret meetings with Assad in Syria in 2017, but he dismissed the matter, sidestepping it and reverting to past grievances about the elections in 2016 and 2020 in an obvious attempt to change the topic.

Gabbard has occasionally criticized Assad, and this week described her views as influenced by her military background and the “threat of Islamist terrorism.”

However, this does not sufficiently explain why Gabbard felt compelled to visit Assad secretly back in 2017. As the brutalities of his regime become clearer following his departure, she owes an explanation.

Key questions for Tulsi Gabbard during her confirmation hearing

Wa’el Alzayat, who heads the Muslim American voter engagement group Emgage, has a pressing question for Gabbard. Given Syria’s ongoing instability, he has “legitimate” concerns about the future of the country and wants to know whether Gabbard believes Syria should revert to Assad’s control.

“If her answer is yes, that would be deeply concerning,” Alzayat stated. “And if her answer is no, then we can proceed to help Syria ensure a successful transition for its people.”

It raises the question of whether Gabbard will be confronted with this during her potential Senate hearing.

“We will ensure that she is asked,” Alzayat affirmed.

Several aspects about Syria can be true simultaneously.

Abu Mohammed al-Golani, who leads the factions that ousted Assad, has a history of connections with terrorist groups that have attacked Americans, and he was once imprisoned by U.S. forces in Iraq. He still has a $10 million bounty on his head. Despite his attempts to position himself as a Syrian nationalist, these connections remain concerning.

Nonetheless, this does not diminish the suffering and devastation Assad inflicted on his citizens, supported by Russia and Iran, throughout a civil war that persisted for 13 years.

Gabbard’s track record of skepticism toward the agencies she now seeks to lead

Gabbard has a history of questioning American intelligence agencies, making it fitting for Trump to nominate her to lead them. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has openly criticized the Pentagon and has a troubling past, including allegations of sexual assault.

According to an NBC News report on Tuesday, Trump is proceeding with Hegseth’s problematic nomination partly to divert attention from Gabbard and her past, although Trump’s transition team has denied this assertion to NBC News.

But scrutiny of Gabbard is inevitable.

Nearly 100 former intelligence and national security officials recently sent a letter to U.S. Senator John Thune, the new Republican majority leader, and U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader, urging for a closed-door hearing to assess Gabbard’s record. They expressed concerns that her “previous actions raise doubts about her capability to provide impartial intelligence briefings to the President, Congress, and the broader national security community.”

On Monday, Trump’s associates highlighted a letter signed by over 250 military veterans, along with endorsements from 13 current or upcoming Republican senators, all expressing commendation for Gabbard.

Gabbard, who served four terms in Congress representing a district in Hawaii, also holds the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.

Gabbard enjoys backing from Russian propaganda sources

It’s not just Assad that garners her interest. Similar to Trump, Gabbard appears to be fascinated by Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the admiration seems to be mutual.

State-run media in Russia, such as RT (previously Russia Today) and Sputnik International, have been actively promoting Gabbard’s candidacy via their social media accounts, particularly on X, which is now heavily associated with the spread of misinformation.

Interesting support network, isn’t it? The official media of a significant geopolitical rival endorses a candidate poised to oversee U.S. intelligence operations. What could be the reason for their endorsement?

Last week, three former aides of Gabbard informed ABC News that she was not only consuming but also disseminating Russian propaganda, including news from RT. The admiration appears to be reciprocal.

This naturally prompts more inquiries regarding Gabbard’s worldview, her skepticism towards American institutions, her apparent dependence on foreign misinformation, and her inclination towards authoritarian leaders.

Will we receive clear answers? I remain skeptical.

It’s likely Gabbard will adopt a strategy akin to Trump’s, framing any inquiry as an unwarranted political assault, dismissing any accurate recounting of her previous remarks as a distorted attack on her character.

Nevertheless, senators should proceed with their questions. They ought to insist on clarifications and thoroughly scrutinize any evasive responses regarding her historical positions.