AMB. GORDON SONDLAND: The truth about Iran’s ‘imminent threat’ that politicians hate to admit

There is nothing wrong with questioning . 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 —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 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.

The intelligence communitys 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.

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 proliferation does not unfold that way. It is gradual, opaque and often deliberately ambiguous. A regime like Irans advances its capabilities in stages—enriching uranium, refining weaponization and expanding delivery systems—without ever presenting a single, definitive moment that clearly signals that the threshold has been crossed.

If the standard for an imminent threat is that must be on the verge of pressing a launch button, then the United States has already forfeited its ability to prevent the outcome. At that stage, the options available are severely constrained, and the risks multiply dramatically.

A more realistic assessment recognizes that the convergence of capability and intent defines an imminent threat.

And on the question of intent, there should be no confusion.

Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the regime has consistently and openly defined itself in opposition to the United States and its allies. “Death to America” has not been a slogan used in passing; it has been a defining feature of the regimes identity. Iran has funded and armed proxy groups throughout the region, targeted U.S. interests and worked systematically to undermine stability from Lebanon to Yemen.

This is not a regime whose intentions are unclear or evolving. Its posture has been telegraphed for more than 40 years.

When that long-standing intent is paired with advancing capability, the nature of the threat changes.

If Iran is within one to two years of developing a deliverable nuclear warhead and is simultaneously expanding its , that timeline cannot be dismissed as distant. In strategic terms, it is compressed. The closer those two tracks come to intersecting, the fewer viable options remain for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.

This is not a theoretical concern. It is a question of whether the United States and its allies retain the ability to influence the outcome at all.

Some Democratic critics argue that without concrete evidence of an impending strike, the threshold for an imminent threat has not been met. Their concern, understandably, is that broadening the definition risks justifying unnecessary conflict. That is a legitimate fear, and it deserves to be part of the discussion.