Rand Paul: No Evidence Iran Was an Imminent Threat

[mystery-ak]

Rand Paul: No Evidence Iran Was an Imminent Threat

Pam Key 14 Apr 2026

Tuesday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said the evidence that Iran was an imminent threat to the United States was not there.

Co-host Joe Kernen said, “You have such a tough job. I asked Senator Scott, and he said, I love Senator Paul because you never waver, but everybody wavers. I was going to ask you about war powers, and the Constitution is messy, and to stick with it as you do in the real world, it’s hard. I don’t know why you even have this job. It must be so difficult at this point for you, right? It’s a pain.”

Paul said, “If not me, who will do it? Somebody needs to do it. And people say, ‘Oh, be on the team.’ There’s enough people on the team. There needs to be somebody not on the team on occasion who says, ” You know what, we have to vote on the initiation of war, it’s our obligation. And that’s what our founders put in there, because they didn’t want all the power in one person.”

Kernen said, “Right, but you look at how many times, you know, the War Powers Act was essentially violated, you wonder why people say, well, it was, you know, Libya, Kosovo, all these other things. It just seems like, de facto, it’s not relevant anymore or something.”

Paul said, “The interesting thing about the War Powers Act is it’s misreported all the time. It’s misreported it as a reporting, requirement that after 60 days, the president needs to report. Well, people don’t read the whole War Powers Act. War Powers Act only says there’s three instances when a president can go to war, a declaration by Congress, use of authorization of force by Congress or an imminent threat.”

He added, “So really, the debate now should be is a 47-year-old conflict and imminent threat. Were there changes in their nuclear program that made this an imminent threat? And I don’t think the evidence is there that there was an imminent threat that would allow the president to go to war on his own.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2026/04/14/rand-paul-no-evidence-iran-was-an-imminent-threat/

[DefiantMassRINO]

... good luck convincing Israel of that after Hamas' attack on October 7, 2023.

Iran's proxies are a constant, imminent threat.

Rand has fallen for Iran's plausible deniability ruse.

[catfish1957]

Paul has become a useful tool for the left lately....

I don't think these facts can be disputed....

1. iran admitted in negotiations it had enough enriched Uranium for 11 Nukes
2. The missle aimed at Diego Garcia exceeded distances that even Mossad intelligence had gathered.
3. Iran has waged war at Arab neighbors in an act of utter madness
4. Over 30K Iranian citizens have been executed for ideological reasons
5. Iran has wished our destruction for 47 years unabated
6. Iran has broken every treaty and agreement enacted
 
Keep it up Rand....   KY might send you packing. 

[Free Vulcan]

Rand has wandered off to the pink sky world...

[libertybele]

Rand has undeniably shifted more to the left. I see him as siding with Iran which is a questionable political alliance and will not help the GOP during the mid terms.  I don't see him as a Libertarian anymore.  Unfortunately his seat is not up for grabs until 2028, but that keeps KY as a red state for awhile??

[Free Vulcan]

Rand has undeniably shifted more to the left. I see him as siding with Iran which is a questionable political alliance and will not help the GOP during the mid terms.  I don't see him as a Libertarian anymore.  Unfortunately his seat is not up for grabs until 2028, but that keeps KY as a red state for awhile??

He's become a doctrinaire academian, so pure in form and principle that he's reduced himself to a whispering political pontiff sitting in the cheap seats.

Just have the stones to come out and say we should never have military action ever instead of always trying to give the enemy a makeover.

[catfish1957]

He's become a doctrinaire academian, so pure in form and principle that he's reduced himself to a whispering political pontiff sitting in the cheap seats.

Just have the stones to come out and say we should never have military action ever instead of always trying to give the enemy a makeover.

Stones?  If he keeps this up, we need to insist a Cage Match with Mark Wayne Mullin....

MWM record?  5-0
Rand Paul?  0-1

[berdie]

Rand (and Ron) are isolationists. I get that. But if he thinks Iran wasn't a threat to the US and allies he has a loose screw.

If he's advocating "wait until they attack us and then respond" alrighty. Let them drop a bomb on his house in KY before we get this party started.

[libertybele]

Rand (and Ron) are isolationists. I get that. But if he thinks Iran wasn't a threat to the US and allies he has a loose screw.

If he's advocating "wait until they attack us and then respond" alrighty. Let them drop a bomb on his house in KY before we get this party started.

   You rock @berdie 

[roamer_1]

Rand has wandered off to the pink sky world...

I don't think so. He is standing directly where he always has, right on libertarian principles.

He will always, predictably (like a clock), be against war and foreign entanglements, be against big government and big spending, and always and forever for proper execution of the US Constitution.

And technically, he is right. And Right.

[Bigun]

Rand has wandered off to the pink sky world...

A long time ago! I've been friends with Ron Paul for 50+ years but we have never agreed on foreign policy.

[mountaineer]

Keep it up Rand....   KY might send you packing.

I hope so.

[roamer_1]

A long time ago! I've been friends with Ron Paul for 50+ years but we have never agreed on foreign policy.

And that's alright... But you can't expect the man, or his son, to follow along against his principles. He won't go anymore than I would.

To expect different from him or cussing him because he won't go along where he predictably never goes is not productive.

[Cyber Liberty]

And that's alright... But you can't expect the man, or his son, to follow along against his principles. He won't go anymore than I would.

To expect different from him or cussing him because he won't go along where he predictably never goes is not productive.

The only problem I have with that is the world is a different place than it was in 1946.  If we sit and wait, as we did before Pearl Harbor, we'll be in a much weaker position than we were in 1945.  With ICBMs threatening, we cannot wait to be attacked anymore, because a first strike can destroy our ability to respond and a war will be over in less than a day, we lose.  Even in Montana and Arizona.

[roamer_1]

The only problem I have with that is the world is a different place than it was in 1946.  If we sit and wait, as we did before Pearl Harbor, we'll be in a much weaker position than we were in 1945.  With ICBMs threatening, we cannot wait to be attacked anymore, because a first strike can destroy our ability to respond and a war will be over in less than a day, we lose.  Even in Montana and Arizona.

Maybe so. But the principle remains the same. Conservatism is the study of what is always true. Has always been true, through all history.

And that begins in libertarianism. Throw that away, and whatever is left is not Conservatism anymore.

[Cyber Liberty]

Maybe so. But the principle remains the same. Conservatism is the study of what is always true. Has always been true, through all history.

And that begins in libertarianism. Throw that away, and whatever is left is not Conservatism anymore.

It's possible this will be an academic question when we've been subjugated by a foreign power.

[roamer_1]

It's possible this will be an academic question when we've been subjugated by a foreign power.

I doubt that very much, unless our leaders capitulate. And if they do, we will simply revert to the states. 'Come and take it' is another Conservative principle...


But there is a fine line between defense and war mongering. Foreign entanglements is that line.

Now, that all being said, I am not as against this war as Rand is. But I can see him from here.