The Trump administration is struggling to justify its claim that recent strikes against Iran were necessary to stop an “imminent threat.” Senators who attended a classified briefing said they saw no evidence supporting that idea. The White House has not explained what specific Iranian threat prompted the attacks.
Notably, the administration only began testing its justification more than 12 hours after the U.S. launched missiles, drones, and long-range artillery against Iran. One senior official told reporters American troops would have faced far higher casualties if they had waited for an impending Iranian strike. Two other officials said Trump ordered the strikes because he decided Iran would not fully stop enriching uranium.
According to Politico, the Pentagon held no briefings even nearly 36 hours after the strikes, unusual compared with past practice going back to Vietnam. Unlike previous presidents launching major campaigns, Trump did not seek congressional approval, consult U.S. allies, or appeal to the United Nations, as George H.W. Bush did before the Gulf War, or ask the Senate to authorize war, as George W. Bush did for Iraq.
The administration appears to have decided on military action first, then searched for a justification afterward
Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) said, “Whatever imminent threat they’re posing was likely in reaction to our unprecedented military buildup in the region,” calling it “an example of the president deciding what he wanted to do, and then making his administration find whatever argument they could make to justify it.” Hill staffers attending a separate briefing said officials offered no clear evidence that Iran was preparing an imminent attack on U.S. forces.
In an eight-minute video posted on Truth Social after the first wave of attacks, Trump claimed Iran had been developing long-range missiles that could threaten Europe and U.S. troops. Intelligence agencies, however, assess that Tehran will not have such weapons for years.
Trump has also hinted at possible leadership options for Iran after the conflict, though he has not named specifics. In a second video, Trump said operations would continue and U.S. casualties were likely to rise.
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said it would take Iran months to enrich sufficient material for a weapon and years to rebuild nuclear facilities damaged by previous U.S. strikes. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, called the threat manageable, describing the strikes as preventive, not preemptive.
Senate Intelligence Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) stated he had seen no intelligence “that Iran was on the verge of launching any kind of preemptive strike against the United States of America,” calling it a “war of choice.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) added that Iran’s threats were being managed by existing U.S. and allied defenses, noting, “They simply don’t have a missile that can reach the United States, and probably won’t for years.”
Even some administration defenders, like Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), repeated the word “imminent” but avoided specifics. The strikes also drew political criticism, as Biden accused Trump of planning to steal the midterms just hours before the attacks. Top officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are scheduled to brief Congress, as skepticism grows, especially after the first U.S. troops were killed in an Iranian retaliatory strike.
Published: Mar 2, 2026 07:15 pm