Bulwark Takes – "There Was NO Imminent Threat from Iran" (w/ Erin Banco)

Date: March 20, 2026
Host: Sam Stein (Bulwark Editor)
Guest: Erin Banco (National Security Reporter, Reuters)
Episode Theme:
A deep-dive into the origins, intelligence, and evolving consequences of the latest US war with Iran, exposing the lack of an “imminent threat,” the personal and political motives behind the conflict, and the strategic surprises since its outset.

Episode Overview

In this episode, Sam Stein and Erin Banco dissect the origins of the US-Iran war, question the official justification of “imminent threat,” explore the decision-making dynamics within the Trump administration, and assess the surprising consequences and limited endgames now facing US policymakers. Drawing from Banco’s reporting and recent intelligence community testimony, the discussion is both a political autopsy and a sobering exploration of what happens when foreign policy is driven by personality and public messaging over strategy.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. How Did This War Begin?

• Admin Motivations:
  • Trump entered office vowing to avoid war with Iran, favoring diplomacy ([01:47] Erin Banco).
  • However, persistent Israeli pressure, particularly from Netanyahu, began shifting US posture throughout 2025-2026 ([01:47] Erin Banco).
  • Trump and Netanyahu met frequently (“Netanyahu comes to the White House like seven times or something like that”), with the Israeli leader making a detailed, often persuasive case for military action ([02:00] Erin Banco).
• Israeli Influence:
  • Netanyahu educated Trump directly about the ballistic missile threat posed by Iran, persuading Trump that action was necessary despite US intelligence assessments suggesting the threat was not imminent ([03:26] Erin Banco).
• Contradictory Intelligence:
  • US intelligence found Iran’s missile and nuclear programs were developing much more slowly than Israeli claims ([03:37] Erin Banco).
  • “They begin to realize that Iran's ballistic missile program is not developing as fast as the Israelis say it is, and that it will take years for any kind of intercontinental ballistic missile to reach the homeland, if that is the intent of Iran.” ([03:37] Erin Banco)

2. Decision-Making Inside the Trump Administration

• Reluctance for Open Dissent:
  • No principal inside the Trump admin is known to have explicitly warned against the war—reflecting a culture where such dissent was discouraged ([08:10] Erin Banco).
  • “When people do do that, the president does not take kindly to them.” ([08:10] Erin Banco)
• Use of “Imminent Threat” as Justification:
  • The concept of imminence seemed to matter more for public messaging than for Trump’s actual decision-making ([09:15] Erin Banco):

    “To Trump, I don't think it really mattered. I think it mattered for the messaging… [but] at the end of the day, I think Trump didn't really care about the word of imminence.”

• Personal Motivation: Attempt on Trump’s Life:
  • The existence of intelligence suggesting Iran had plotted to assassinate Trump became a strong personal driver for his decision to strike.

    "He told me, I got him before he got me. They tried twice. Well, I got him first.” ([10:47] Narrator quoting Trump)

  • Banco reiterates:

    "I think most things with Trump are personal, right?" ([10:31] Erin Banco)

  • The successful operation against Maduro shortly before emboldened Trump to pursue similar decisive action ([09:16] Erin Banco).

3. Surprises and Miscalculations in the Conflict

• Unexpected Regional Retaliation:
  • The US administration was “surprised” by the scope and scale of Iran’s retaliation, particularly attacks on Gulf allies and escalation into a regional conflict.

    “They did not necessarily anticipate the rigor with which Tehran would hit Gulf allies.” ([12:28] Erin Banco)

• Consequences for the Strait of Hormuz:
  • Lack of advance coalition-building led to strategic vulnerabilities and diplomatic headaches when the Strait was closed, imperiling global energy markets ([14:20] Erin Banco).
  • “One of the things is that they didn't get a coalition together prior to the strikes to say, well, if the Strait of Hormuz closes, will you help us navigate these waters?” ([14:20] Erin Banco)

4. Evolving Public Messaging & Internal Contradictions

• The Imminence Debate:
  • Congressional testimony by Tulsi Gabbard (Intel Chief) showed her evasiveness about “imminent threat” and the intelligence community’s actual findings:
    • Gabbard:

      "The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president." ([18:05] Tulsi Gabbard)

    • Ossoff:

      "No, it is precisely your responsibility." ([18:48] John Ossoff)

  • Erin Banco clarifies:

    “If you read between the lines, you could see that both on the nuclear program and the ballistic missile program... neither of them were imminent threats.” ([19:18] Erin Banco)

• Diverging Israeli and US Objectives:
  • Israel’s goal: Decapitation strikes and regime change in Iran.
  • US stated goal: Destruction of missile and naval capabilities.
    • Gabbard:

      "The objectives that have been laid out by the President are different from the objectives that have been laid out by the Israeli government." ([21:29] Tulsi Gabbard)

    • “Israeli government has been focused on disabling the Iranian leadership...” ([21:39] Tulsi Gabbard)
    • “The president has stated that his objectives are to destroy Iran's ballistic missile launching capability … and their navy.” ([21:59] Tulsi Gabbard)
  • Banco:

    "Let’s put aside the imminent conversation. Like, there wasn’t an imminent threat… So if there wasn’t an imminent threat, then what are we doing?" ([22:18] Erin Banco)

    • Implies that Trump’s rationale was more about the chance to eliminate a rival who had threatened him.

5. Current Situation & Off-Ramps

• Present Strategic Dilemma:
  • The war is stalled, now a protracted regional conflict with no clear end in sight:

    “What we have now is a regional conflict that has no clear end in sight and has gone a little bit off the rails.” ([12:28] Erin Banco)

• Endgame Options (All Bad):
  • Pull out and risk leaving the Strait of Hormuz closed.
  • Send US troops to the Strait or Carg Island (energy hub), both risky and possibly escalating involvement.
  • Nuclear containment—extremely dangerous, complex, puts US troops at great risk.

    "Those three things are really, I think, arguably not great options because you're putting American lives on the line for solutions that aren't or success that is not clearly defined or gettable." ([26:42] Erin Banco)

• “Markets and Gas”:
  • Trump’s war decisions often correlate with markets and pump prices, increasing pressure for a swift resolution:

    “Markets and gas prices at the pump. Those… have always been what he has talked about most publicly and really latched onto when it comes to foreign policy.” ([27:08] Erin Banco)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Israeli Pressure:

  “Netanyahu comes to the White House like seven times or something like that. He lays out the case for why Israel wants to take… another military incursion into Iran.” ([01:47] Erin Banco)

• On the Lack of an Imminent Threat:

  “All the evidence of reporting out there says that. So, like, take that off the table. So if there wasn’t an imminent threat, then what are we doing?” ([22:18] Erin Banco)

• Tulsi Gabbard’s Testimony:

  Ossoff: "Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?" ([17:58] John Ossoff)
  Gabbard: "The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president." ([18:05] Tulsi Gabbard)

• On Trump’s Decision-Making:

  “What we all know about Trump is that his decision making is not always grounded in the most reasonable thought process. And a lot of his decision making is based on how he feels personally.” ([11:09] Erin Banco)

• On the Options Facing the Administration:

  “…you end up endangering U.S. troops. It's a huge investment. You could see the Iranians abduct a US Troop, kill a U. S. Troop. You could, you know, I mean, there's a whole host of horrible outcomes that are associated with that.” ([25:09] Boardwalk Editor)

• On the Importance of the Markets:

  “We see it time and again that he gets spooked by those [markets and gas prices]. So we'll see if that happens here.” ([26:58] Boardwalk Editor)

Important Segments & Timestamps

• Origins of the War, Netanyahu’s Influence: [01:16–05:10]
• The Imminence Debate and Trump’s Motivation: [09:15–12:10]
• Surprises and Consequences, Strait of Hormuz: [12:10–15:38], [14:20]
• Congressional Testimony on Imminence: [16:39–19:18]
• Diverging Israeli and US Objectives: [20:53–23:40]
• Strategic Dilemma, Potential Endgames: [23:55–26:42]
• Markets and Political Pressure: [26:58–27:22]

Takeaway

The episode makes clear: there was no imminent threat from Iran justifying the recent war, as intelligence and congressional testimony affirm. The move was ultimately driven by foreign pressure, personality politics, and a scramble for public justification—leaving the US embroiled in a protracted and unstable regional conflict with bleak options for disengagement.