AMB GORDON SONDLAND: The truth about Iran's 'imminent threat' that politicians hate to admit |
Opinion
AMB GORDON SONDLAND: The truth about Iran's 'imminent threat' that politicians hate to admit
The intelligence community assesses capabilities, timelines and intent, offering probabilities — not final judgments. It should not decide when a threat becomes 'imminent'
By Gordon Sondland Fox News
Published March 23, 2026 5:00am EDT
Facebook Twitter Threads Flipboard Comments Print Email Add Fox News on Google
close
Video
Top intelligence officials grilled on threat from Iran
Fox News correspondent David Spunt takes a look at takeaways from a hearing on worldwide threats on 'Special Report.'
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
There is nothing wrong with questioning U.S. policy toward Iran. In fact, it is essential. The press should probe, Congress should challenge, and both parties should debate the wisdom of any potential military action. These are not trivial matters, and the stakes — American lives, regional stability and nuclear proliferation — are too high for anything less than serious scrutiny.
What has become troubling, however, is how unserious the conversation has become around a single phrase: "imminent threat."
Following recent testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, a number of lawmakers — particularly Democrats — expressed disbelief when she stated that whether a threat qualifies as an "imminent threat" is ultimately a determination made by the president. Some Republican voices, eager to distance themselves from the political risks of escalation, have echoed similar skepticism, suggesting that unless there is clear, near-term evidence of an attack, any preemptive posture is unjustified.
Both sides are missing the point.
GABBARD SIDESTEPS IRAN ‘IMMINENT THREAT’ CLAIM UNDER SENATE GRILLING
The intelligence community’s role is to assess capabilities, estimate timelines and evaluate intent. It provides a range of probabilities and scenarios. It does not — and should not — make the final determination about when a threat becomes an "imminent threat." That responsibility rests with the president, who must integrate intelligence with military readiness, alliance considerations and the broader strategic landscape.
Video
The problem with the current debate is that an "imminent threat" is being treated as if it has a precise, universally accepted definition. It does not.
In a conventional setting, an imminent threat might be easy to identify: troops massing at a border, missiles being fueled, orders being transmitted. But nuclear........