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.
I'm even more hopeful they replace Massie.

[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.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

In this case, the whole question of imminent threat hinges on the veracity of the Mullahs statements about enough material to make 11 nukes, and their ability to deliver those. Their missile capabilities exceeding known ability by a factor of 2 is concerning as well. Their use of proxies had destabilized the region repeatedly over the past 5 decades, but the nuclear capability is the game changer that takes them from a murderous pain in the ass to the next level.
I see where he is coming from, yes the Constitution should be honored. I think the essential difference is one of how he perceives the threat.

If a half dozen missiles were launched from false flagged container vessels off our coast, the detonation of even 'just' dirty bombs over NYC, DC, Newport News, Boston, Baltimore, and Savannah, that side of the country would be crippled, while the rest had to deal with millions of refugees and being cut off from the ports which would have supplied them.

It is time the growing threat was removed; before it quite reaches critical mass.

[Free Vulcan]

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.

Which is fine, but just come out and say unless someone is putting troops on our shores we don't fight. Fair enough.

But don't say Iran is an imminent threat. They just proved they are. Thankfully Israel hitting them with Stuxnet years ago and bombing them last year set them back, or their death cult leaders would already be launching ICBM's at us and everyone else including their allies.

These guys are more rabid than the Commies or Nazis and I don't see any other alternative than to completely eradicate their leadership like we did the Nazis.

[roamer_1]

In this case, the whole question of imminent threat hinges on the veracity of the Mullahs statements about enough material to make 11 nukes, and their ability to deliver those. Their missile capabilities exceeding known ability by a factor of 2 is concerning as well. Their use of proxies had destabilized the region repeatedly over the past 5 decades, but the nuclear capability is the game changer that takes them from a murderous pain in the ass to the next level.
I see where he is coming from, yes the Constitution should be honored. I think the essential difference is one of how he perceives the threat.

If a half dozen missiles were launched from false flagged container vessels off our coast, the detonation of even 'just' dirty bombs over NYC, DC, Newport News, Boston, Baltimore, and Savannah, that side of the country would be crippled, while the rest had to deal with millions of refugees and being cut off from the ports which would have supplied them.

It is time the growing threat was removed; before it quite reaches critical mass.

I know all that. How many times now have we gone over there to blow their shit to smithereens? And each time, we are assured we got it done.
Oh, and each time without Congressional approval.

The tale is getting tired.

Structurally I stand closer to Rand in this. There is a reason that Congress is supposed to declare war, and I remain always against imbuing that power into the hands of one man... Even if he is supposedly 'our guy'.

Now, that being said, If we have to go over there ad kick their ass, then mean it. If they turned the whole damn thing into a plain of glass and went after them proxies, root and vine, with extreme prejudice, and the whole thing is done as done, THEN I would have confidence that it was not only necessary, but that they actually meant it for what it was.

But right now it feels a whole lot like kicking the can, yet again, and a metric butt-ton of nation building incoming. Just like last time.

[roamer_1]

The rah-rah folks and the hut-hut folks all get together and next thing you know, the libertarians are thrown under the bus again, again.