Insisting on ‘imminence’ for military action would consign international law to irrelevance.
Share this story
U.S. Air Force personnel work on munitions by a U.S. Air Force B-1B bomber at RAF Fairford, amid the U.S.–Israeli conflict with Iran, in Fairford, England, March 11, 2026.
Phil Noble/Reuters
On March 18, Senate Intelligence Committee members grilled National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard on a misguided question: Did Iran pose an imminent threat to the United States? Gabbard fumbled her response, saying that only the president can decide whether a threat is imminent. Her questioners contradicted her.
Both sides in this exchange, however, were chasing a red herring.
About the Author
Douglas J. Feith is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute and served in the George W. Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
On March 18, Senate Intelligence Committee members grilled National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard on a misguided question: Did Iran pose an imminent threat to the United States? Gabbard fumbled her response, saying that only the president can decide whether a threat is imminent. Her questioners contradicted her.
Both sides in this exchange, however, were chasing a red herring.
By continuing, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.
About the Author
Douglas J. Feith is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute and served in the George W. Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments