Iran Was Not an Imminent Threat? What Kind of Standard Is That?

Hotair ^ | 03/18/2026 | David Strom

[SeekAndFind]

One of the more bizarre arguments being made by people against Operation Epic Fury is that Iran was not an "imminent" threat. 

To which my answer is...so what? Assume that was true, for a moment. Did you WANT it to be an imminent threat? What kind of standard is that?

You ADMIT Iran is very dangerous, but then walk it back and try to claim they were never a threat.

Which one is it, Jim? pic.twitter.com/VbwxmySeq7— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 17, 2026

No serious person denies that Iran has been waging a gray zone war against Americans for nearly half a century, nor that they are the world's #1 sponsor of terrorists. Even most Democrats will concede that Iran, which chants "Death to America" every time it can do so, is a very dangerous country, and that, should it get a nuclear weapon, it would become even more dangerous. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren after Iran briefing: "It is so much worse than you thought. Trump has no plan. This illegal war is based on lies and was launched without any imminent threat."pic.twitter.com/t5zZe4H0a7— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) March 4, 202

Thousands of Americans have been killed by Iran and its proxies. That's not even in dispute. Most Democrats will concede that the regime is evil, that the Ayatollahs are murderous dictators, and that they take every opportunity to kill people when they can do so without retribution. 

Yet the argument seems to be: wait until it gets a nuclear weapon, and then we have reason to attack it. 

Going through this letter in detail:

"Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States."

Neither did ISIS. And yet you applaud their defeat later on in your letter. Just because an adversary isn't an "imminent threat" doesn't mean you should wait until that threat is "imminent" and much more costly to deal with, if their trajectory is headed that way.

"I support the values and the foreign policies you campaigned on in 2016, 2020, and 2024, which you enacted in your first term."

Those include repeated commitments to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

"In your first administration, you understood better than any modern President how to decisively apply military power without getting us drawn into never-ending wars. You demonstrated this by killing Qasam Solamani and by defeating ISIS."

Then why aren't you giving him the benefit of the doubt? We're less than three weeks in to Epic Fury. It took quite a bit longer than that for President Trump to finish off ISIS.

"Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran."

Source? I noticed a misinformation campaign going the other direction - from people like Tucker who suggested 20,000 Americans would almost certainly die if we knocked out the Iranian nuclear facilities last June.

"This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States."

THIS is the part that's just incredibly patronizing. Trump has six years of experience being President, He has access to the best assessments made by his intelligence community and his military. Suggesting he fell victim to an external influence operation instead of going with the advice of his appointed senior advisors is patronizing and insulting.

"This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq War."

THAT is false. The record is clear that the Israeli government cautioned against American entry into Iraq. Netanyahu giving supportive testimony in Congress while he was a private citizen (after the decision to invade had been made) does not contradict that.

"As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost by beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel..."

We're all sorry for your loss. But even if you are right about Israel encouraging us to invade Iraq (which you are not, as discussed), how are you still blaming them for America's continued presence in Iraq seventeen years later?

None of this is remotely persuasive, Joe, and it's deeply insulting to the President who endorsed your Congressional campaigns and entrusted you with an important National Security position. That said, your conscience is your conscience, and given that these are your beliefs, it is indeed best that you no longer serve in the administration.

https://t.co/P1CIyKRwQi— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) March 17, 2026

Democrats have even suggested that one reason not to attack Iran was that it had sleeper cells in the United States. OK, isn't THAT an imminent threat? 

Iran was building 100 missiles a month, pursuing a "porcupine" strategy to make it invulnerable to attack. Once enough ballistic missiles were accumulated, it would become impractical to attack it to destroy its nuclear program. 

Iran did pose an imminent threat. Their goal was to ramp up missile production until they could throw so many at us that it would overwhelm our defenses. China was sending them vast quantities of propellants, guidance systems, and missile components after we bombed their nuclear facilities last summer. Behind that cover, they would be able to rebuild their nuclear program unimpeded, and eventually get the bomb that would make them untouchable. The U.S. acted not a moment too soon.

https://t.co/YqNEnKbpjF pic.twitter.com/d2YfAUiyVH— Payton Alexander (@AlexanderPayton) March 17, 2026

ran did pose an imminent threat. Their goal was to ramp up missile production until they could throw so many at us that it would overwhelm our defenses. China was sending them vast quantities of propellants, guidance systems, and missile components after we bombed their nuclear facilities last summer. Behind that cover, they would be able to rebuild their nuclear program unimpeded, and eventually get the bomb that would make them untouchable. The U.S. acted not a moment too soon.

Since the United States has, and has had for decades, a policy of denying Iran the opportunity to acquire a nuclear weapon, the imminent inability to accomplish that goal was itself a threat. Making a nuclear Iran inevitable was a threat in itself. If we wanted to stop it, we had to do so now. 

The logic behind this argument is rather stunning: it should be the policy of the United States to maximize our vulnerability before we can prevent disaster. No sane person would choose this path when lives are at stake. 

Personally, I prefer any threats to me NOT be imminent. Perhaps it is a gal thing. I like them handled from a distance.— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@HarmeetKDhillon) March 17, 2026

Obviously, it would be wrong to just take out anybody who we think might one day present a threat, but just as obviously, we should preempt a known threat before it becomes a crisis. 

Iran has proven itself to be a threat. It declares it daily. It funds terrorism that kills Americans and our allies. We would have been justified in taking them out any day after the Ayatollah sent students in to kidnap American diplomats and hold them hostage. 

On January 12, 2016, while Barack Obama was president, Iran’s IRGC seized a U.S. Navy boat.

Iran released footage showing American sailors humiliated, some kneeling and others in tears before Iranian forces.

pic.twitter.com/f8P1sX1ZTZ— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) February 28, 2026

Democrats have had a love affair with appeasing Iran since Obama decided to subsidize the terrorist state, allowing it to murder American soldiers in Iraq, and helping pay for its nuclear program. They allowed the threat to metastasize, and this is the result. 

If Trump can eliminate the regime, it will be a gift to the world, and it certainly will be in the interests of the United States.

---

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Iran; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 5thcolumnonfr; anyexcuseforazot; anyexcuseforwar; disruptorkywrdtroll; dukeywordtroll; imminent; iran; irgc; joekent; maketrollzotsgreat; makewargreatagain; nevertrumpkywrdtroll; tdskeywordtroll; threat; waronterror; welovetrollzots; welovewaragain

[SeekAndFind]

[MayflowerMadam]

Still dining out on his dead wife. Had to throw in being a Gold Star Husband.

He didn’t mention that his current wife is a leftie activist who takes money from an Iranian broadcaster, and writes for an Israel hating publication.

[Jonty30]

Imminent means too late.

The higher the sine wave, the more effort it takes to put it back down.

[Antioch]

Did India and Pakistan reduce each other to scorched glass when they both developed nuclear weapons? No? Why? Maybe because they both had a deterrent and figured out a way to live together because it was better than dying together. But Netanyahu wants you to believe that the day after Iran develops a nuclear weapon they just won’t be able to resist attacking a country across an ocean armed with 5,000+ nuclear warheads. It’s a preposterous scenario you are being asked to blow billions on and die for.

[Steely Tom]

Adolf wasn’t an imminent threat either.

[Freedom4US]

It’s a fool’s errand to try and find logic or consistency in their rhetoric.

If you pay attention, you’ll note there is (sort of) a consistency with respect to self-defense insofar their “standard” is the same whether it is an individual or a nation state. I suppose this is what they mean by “imminent threat”. You have to be getting your head bashed in first, before self-defense is (maybe) OK.

Nuclear weapons made all the old time rules of war obsolete. Even before the first device was successfully tested in New Mexico, top level scientists and US government officials were pretty much apoplectic about the future, because there was no way to put the atomic genie back in the bottle. Any nation with sufficient scientific and industrial expertise would be able to build a bomb.

That was 80 years ago, and we’re still seeing those fears playing out today.

[TigersEye]

Mahyar Tousi takes Joe Kent apart in 10 minutes and does it with facts. Facts that Kent himself provided over the years.

Trump Official Joe Kent EXPOSED After Flipping From Anti-IRGC to Pro-IRGC Youtube - TousiTV

[Freedom4US]

Did India and Pakistan reduce each other to scorched glass when they both developed nuclear weapons? No?
———

Well, there’s still time. If another can of “instant sunshine” gets opened this is perhaps the most likely.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: But Netanyahu wants you to believe that the day after Iran develops a nuclear weapon they just won’t be able to resist attacking a country across an ocean armed with 5,000+ nuclear warheads.

Let me understand what you’re saying — if you were President, you’d simply leave Iran alone and let her develop her ICBMs and allow her to perfect the nuclear warheads because you believe their Islamist Mullahs won’t use them or share them with their terror proxies at all for fear that their country will be reduced to ashes if they dare use them?

[Freedom4US]

“Imminent means too late”

Exactly. They know this, they just don’t care. I guess you’re just supposed to take it. They really don’t like nations defending themselves anymore than the individual defending himself.

I’m a little surprised they don’t try to have the international equivalent of the “Duty To Retreat” on the international geopolitical scene, in the same way some states still do for individual citizens. Fauxchahontas out there in Massachusetts, they have that on the books.

Somebody attacks you in your home, well you gotta leave, by law.

[Biblebelter]

I STAND with Trump.

And so does Tulsi Gabbard.

It is this SIMPLE.

In her first public comments since the February 28 strikes, Gabbard posted on X Tuesday: 'Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people to be our President and Commander in Chief. 'As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat, and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country.'

I never served in the military, but my Daddy did.

Don't doubt me when I say everyone in his family him in included detested FDR and every Commie policy he ever initiated.

But my father told me he shed a tear and it shook him and his crew mates up when they found out FDR had died while they were stationed in Italy flying bombing missions in a B-24.

Any real soldier respects the commander in chief no matter what might be the political differences.

Tulsi is military to the core and she understands chain of command and loyalty to the commander in chief.

When Trump deems something a imminent threat, then either get behind him or get the hell out of the country.

[toddausauras]

I don’t like war. But we all know what the filthy Mullahs’ plans were. Long term revenge on a grand scale. Our very existence is their affront. We are infidels to be slaughtered. Well, know they’re DEAD!

[unclebankster]

I support the current bombing campaign against Iran, but it’s a whack a mole endeavor.

Our conventional munitions reserves will eventually run low, then we’ll declare victory and start negotiations.

This current action was a gamble.

[Bob Wills is still the king]

It matters because a real “imminent threat” is what the Constitution requires before a president sets off on a war all by himself. Declaring war is a specific task given by the Constitution to Congress, and what we’re in is a war.

[DeplorablePaul]

Right. Democrats are recycling the narratives of the Iraq war. A key anti war argument was that Saddam wasn’t an imminent” threat either. Once again Democrat are trying to turn public opinion against Trump.

[SeekAndFind]

The question of whether an “imminent threat” is a constitutional requirement is one of the most debated topics in American law.

There isn’t a single “true” answer because the Constitution’s text is brief, leaving a massive grey area that the Executive and Legislative branches have fought over for 250 years.

The Framers (like James Madison) generally believed the President should only have the power to “repel sudden attacks” without a vote. This is where the concept of “imminence” comes from—the idea that if the country is about to be hit, the President shouldn’t have to wait for a debate.

The Trump administration (and many conservative legal scholars) subscribes to a theory that the President’s Article II powers are much broader.

The President doesn’t need to show an “imminent threat” to the homeland specifically. They argue he has the inherent power to use force to protect “national interests” or “regional stability” (like preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East).

They can cite the 2011 intervention in Libya (Obama) or the 1999 Kosovo bombings (Clinton), where presidents acted without an “imminent threat” to the U.S. and without a vote from Congress.

The Bottom Line: While the spirit of the Constitution and the letter of the War Powers Act suggest an imminent threat or a vote is required, modern presidential practice has largely ignored this requirement—and so far, the courts have not stopped them.

[philman_36]

Declaring war is a specific task given by the Constitution to Congress...

Ah, Congress. Delegating their responsibilities and duties to others since at least 1913.

War Powers Resolution: Expedited Procedures in the House and Senate

It wasn’t ME, so vote for me in the next election. /Congressional impression

[metmom]

And it’s foolhardy to wait until you do.

[philman_36]

The caveat justification...imminent. 3/17/2026

Some people are so slow in figuring things out.

[taxesareforever]

To our government they can anyone an eminent threat and go bomb them. What’s to stop them? Ah, nothing.