There Was NO Imminent Threat from Iran (w/ Erin Banco)

Summary

---

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.

---

Transcript

[Tire Rack Announcer]

Tires matter. They're the only part of your vehicle that touches the road. Tread confidently with new tires from Tire Rack. Whether you're looking for expert recommendations or know exactly what you want, Tire Rack makes it easy, fast. Free shipping, free road hazard protection, and convenient installation options. Go to tirerack.com to see Tire test results, tire ratings and consumer reviews. And be sure to check out all the special offers. Tirerack.com the way Tire buying should be.

[Tyler Redick / Ryan Seacrest]

Tyler redick here from 2311 Racing, Victory Lane. Yeah, it's even better with Chumba by my side. Race to chumbacasino.com let's Chumba. No purchase necessary VTW Group void work prohibited by law. CTNC's 21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino.

[Sam Stein]

Hey, everybody, it's me, Sam Stein, managing

[Boardwalk Editor]

editor of the Boardwalk. And I'm pleased to welcome back Aaron Banko, national security reporter for Reuters.

[Sam Stein]

Aaron's been on once before. I've been meaning to have her back again.

[Boardwalk Editor]

Uh, Erin's one of the best in the business. She didn't pay me to say that, but we did work together in a prior life when we were both at the Daily Beast. Aaron, thanks for doing this. I really appreciate it.

[Aaron Banko]

Yeah, thanks for having me back.

[Boardwalk Editor]

I know I, I, I toiled with not doing it again, but the last time went smoothly enough. So let's, let's hope this one doesn't have any fireworks.

[Sam Stein]

We're going to be talking about what's

[Boardwalk Editor]

going on in Iran. You've been reporting continuously about a number

[Sam Stein]

of different facets of the war. I think I want to do this

[Boardwalk Editor]

chronologically, even though you're supposed to be forward looking at these things. I think it's important to start with the sort of essential question, which is

[Sam Stein]

why did we get into this war?

[Boardwalk Editor]

What was the administration looking at specifically? We know there's stated rationales, although they've kind of jumped all over the place.

[Sam Stein]

But from your reporting from the NATSA

[Boardwalk Editor]

community, what was the real reason for getting into this war?

[Aaron Banko]

I mean, we have our own reporting, and as you stated, you know, the administration has its own talking points on why it's doing this. But also through the last couple of weeks, it's became apparent that while the talking points may be more aligned now, publicly, there are actually people inside the administration who everybody has a little bit of a different answer. But truly, this story really goes back to Trump's reelection and his inauguration. Trump really enters this administration with a very public messaging that he does not want to get into a war with Iran. That's not something he wants to do, he wants to try to avoid. It becomes very clear that he's going to try to go the diplomatic route with Iran. But at the same time, Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu is very resolved in the fact that in maybe late 2025, 2025 or early 2026, there's going to be some sort of Israeli action, military action against Iran. And so really over a year, Netanyahu and Trump meet several times. I think Netanyahu comes to the White House like seven times or something like that. And Netanyahu tends, I mean, he's a pretty persuasive figure when you sit in front of him. But with Trump, he really had a game plan. And he lays out the case for why Israel wants to take post 12 day war, another military incursion into Iran. And it takes some time, but Trump does eventually get on, on board with the general idea that Iran does pose a threat. Netanyahu meets with him and quite literally teaches him about how ballistic missiles work, tells Trump why.

[Boardwalk Editor]

What do you mean by that?

[Aaron Banko]

I'm told that there's a meeting where Netanyahu and Trump talk about, you know, the extent to which Iran is trying to rebuild its ballistic missile program.

[Boardwalk Editor]

Okay, yeah, sure.

[Aaron Banko]

And how, and, and, and really how, like literally how ballistic missiles work and the threat they, the direct threat they pose to Israel and why Netanyahu is so worried about it. But it becomes very clear, maybe not to Trump right away, but definitely to intelligence officials as they're collecting intelligence during this time period, that Iran's ballistic missile program is not, and I don't, I hate using the word imminent these days because it's become such a story and talking point. But they, 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. Despite some of the caveats that the intelligence community is giving Trump about some of the threats Netanyahu puts down, Trump does begin to get on board with the fact that the US Military may take military action against Iran.

[Boardwalk Editor]

Let me stop you right there, because two things I want to pick up on. One is the early talking point for Marco Rubio was that Israel was going to go ahead and, and, and launch this attack against Iran, which they, which Israel would say is a, a preventative defensive attack because they believe they were in danger. But putting aside, and that the United States intel community had basically concluded that if that attack were to take place, Iran would retaliate not just against Israel, but against the United States. Is that a valid read?

[Aaron Banko]

Yeah, to your point, I mean, it was very clear. The intelligence community does assessments all the time. They do them constantly. And so after the 12 day war.

[Boardwalk Editor]

Let's just stop for a second.

[Sam Stein]

12 day war is when we went

[Boardwalk Editor]

and bombed their nuclear sites over the course of 12 days, just so people understand.

[Aaron Banko]

Thank you for explaining that. So over the summer and the fall and into the winter, the running theory and understanding inside both Israel and the US Is that Israel is going to take another step to partake in a military operation against Iran to go after its particularly the remaining missile sites that they did not hit during the 12 Day War. And so the intelligence community starts to draw up assessments based on that assumption and they start to look at outcomes. What happens if we, Israel goes alone? What happens if we join Israel? And it comes up with all these different assessments. All of them basically lay out the risks. You know, the IRGC is likely to maintain control of Iran should this move forward. If Israel goes in it alone, you know, U.S. diplomatic and military outposts will likely be retaliated against. Byron, the Strait of Hormuz might close, etc. Etc. Despite all of this though, Trump, throughout sort of like late December and January as he's continuing to talk to Netanyahu, is increasingly convinced that the long term threat of Iran is enough to potentially send US Military servicemen into Iran for an air campaign. But he doesn't make the decision until the last day and a half right before the U.S. airstrikes start. I mean, that's classic Trump fashion. He is a decision maker that doesn't pull the trigger on anything really till the last minute.

[Boardwalk Editor]

Well, let me ask you about that, let me ask you quickly because you're talking about all these contingencies and analyses that are happening, which obviously is something that the intel community is going to do. And then the principals take that analysis and they make judgment calls. This administration has said no one could have anticipated that they would have closed this strata form, as I think we all sort of recognize that that's kind of bullshit. There's public white papers out there that, that show that.

[Sam Stein]

But more to the point, what do

[Boardwalk Editor]

we know about the principles in the administration using that intel and saying, hey, maybe we shouldn't do this, or may, hey, maybe this is, you know, got some really bad consequences associated with it and it's not worth the upside.

[Sam Stein]

Because the other thing we do know,

[Boardwalk Editor]

at least according to, you know, Obama and Biden administration officials that this is not the first time Netanyahu made this case to an American administration, that he had made this case to prior administrations.

[Aaron Banko]

I mean, yeah, Netanyahu said publicly he's been trying to do this for 40 years. Right?

[Sam Stein]

So they resisted it because they obviously

[Boardwalk Editor]

said that it's too risky a proposition and they don't want to do it. But Trump didn't. Were there principles inside the administration that you know of who are saying, hey, this is maybe not worth it?

[Aaron Banko]

I don't know if I know of any one principle that was directly telling President Trump, please don't do this. I mean, I think, you know, that's. That's not the role of the intelligence officials that I cover. But I don't know of that. I don't know of Rubio doing that. I don't know if Kane doing that. I don't know if Hegseth doing that. But the way the Trump administration sort of has worked in the past is that it's very, very rare that you have somebody voicing their opinion in that way, because when people do do that, the president does not take kindly to them. But what I will say is that this is why I think we have found ourselves contorted into this messaging campaign where, you know, people are really belaboring the point of, was it an imminent threat? You know, does Iran push pose an imminent threat? And to Trump, I don't think it really mattered. Right. Like, I think it mattered for the messaging. I think it mattered for making the case to the American public, which I don't think they've done very well. There's plenty of public, you know, information out there to. To underscore that. But at the end of the day, I think Trump didn't really care about the word of imminence, and I think.

[Boardwalk Editor]

So what did he care about?

[Aaron Banko]

Well, I mean, I think Bibi made his case. Right, Right. He made the case with the ballistic missiles. He made the case that he thought, you know, Iran had the intention of rebuilding its nuclear program. He thought enrichment was a problem. But lastly, and I think most importantly, what comes in at the very end, right before the US Strikes, is that the US And Israel gather intelligence about the Supreme Leader's location inside Iran. And Israel was always going to start its military campaign with decapitation strikes. Right. Like, what they do is they go in and they take out leaders. And that. That was always. That's not really a US Thing. We don't really do that in the way that Israel does it. But, you know, Bibi says to Trump, look, we have this location of the Supreme Leader. And I think it becomes very personal for Trump. Right. He thinks that, you know, the Supreme Leader tried to kill him. And, you know, let's not forget that this is just a couple of weeks after he launched what is arguably one of the most successful foreign policy operations of his. Not just this administration, but prior administration, where he unseats Maduro, captures him, and brings him home. And so both of those things combined, I think, gives him the personal motivation to press the go button.

[Boardwalk Editor]

He's been pretty open about that personal element, too.

[Aaron Banko]

I think most things with Trump are personal, right?

[Boardwalk Editor]

He's referenced it in speeches.

[Unknown Narrator (about US Intelligence)]

US Intelligence believed that Iran was plotting to kill then candidate Donald Trump. The Secret Service beefed up his security detail. Other precautionary measures were taken. That experience was clearly on his mind as he ordered the attack that killed the Supreme Leader. He told me, I got him before he got me. They tried twice. Well, I got him first.

[Boardwalk Editor]

He talks about how they threatened his life. I've always sort of wondered how much that kind of personal anger motivated his decision to do this.

[Aaron Banko]

Look, I think if you look at anyone who has ever written anything remotely comprehensive about President Trump, whether it be a book or an article or like a thinky piece, 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. I think he said the other day, somebody asked, well, how do you know when the war is done? And he said, I'll just feel it in his bones. But I actually think he meant that like, you know, I think, I think people like to think that Trump is more than. Than what he says. But I think what we've learned is that the President and his own spokespeople say this. Like, the President, when he says something, he, like, that's what he means. There might be people messaging around him, but I think what we know about Trump is that, you know, what he says is what he means, needs.

[Boardwalk Editor]

And look, I know when Aaron Benko written pieces, fully edited and done, when I feel it in my bones. So I get it. You just gotta feel for it.

[Sam Stein]

Let's. Let's fast forward a little bit because

[Boardwalk Editor]

I, I don't think it's crazy to say that things have not gone according to plan, even though the administration will say everything's hunky dory. What has been the biggest surprise for them, do you think, for them?

[Aaron Banko]

And whether or not they should have been surprised. You know, like people can make comments.

[Boardwalk Editor]

Yeah, yeah.

[Aaron Banko]

I think what our reporting has shown at least, is that they did not expect Tehran to retaliate. They expected the retaliation against Israel and us sort of like installations in the region. But they did not necessarily anticipate the rigor with which Tehran would hit Gulf allies. And I think that's been a big problem. They've had a lot of. It's a bit of a diplomatic mess and you have different people saying, well, you know, the UAE wanted it and the Saudis wanted it. But like, at the end of the day, what we have now is a regional conflict that has no clear end in sight and has gone a little bit off the rails.

[Sam Stein]

Bulwark takes a Sponsored by Soul. If you've been listening to our show for a while, you already know how much I love Soul's out of office THC gummies and their sparkling beverages. Now they've launched something new.

[Boardwalk Editor]

Mood gummies. Yeah.

[Sam Stein]

Lately I've been more mindful about how I want to feel when socializing, winding down or just living my life. Instead of defaulting to a drink and hoping for the best, I've chosen Sol's new Mood Gummies. Whether I need a little spark to go out or something to settle down at night, they've got the perfect option

[Boardwalk Editor]

to make me feel just right.

[Sam Stein]

Soul is a wellness brand that makes delicious hemp derived CBD and THC products designed to make you feel good. Sol's new Mood Gummies have precise dosing, clean ingredients and formulations designed for predictable effects so you can choose how you want to feel while staying in control. When it's time to wind down, the mellow gummies deliver 3 milligrams of indica, THC and CBN. It's ideal for cozy nights and fully unplugging. Make today a good day and get yourself some Seoul gummies. Right now, Seoul is offering our audience 30% off your entire order. Yeah, 30%. Go to getsol.com and use the code bulwarktakes. That's getsoul.com promo code bulwarktix for 30% off.

[Aaron Banko]

The second thing I'll say is that I don't know they fully planned for the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. Maybe, maybe they expected it. I mean, this has been something that military planners have worked like gamed out for decades. You talk to people who worked in the administration or like, you know, years ago or career service men who will say that they've they did this like ten plus years ago. Right. But it's one thing to anticipate it and it's another thing to plan for something. And so there are a lot of questions about the fact that Trump made, seemingly made this decision to launch the first strikes on not necessarily a whim, but very last minute. And, and that there wasn't a lot of planning about the specific timing around the specific timing of that. And 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? I mean, diplomats weren't ordered departure until days later, days after the strikes began. But I would say the biggest thing has been they weren't necessarily anticipating that a, the regime and the IRGC would still be so much intact and that the retaliation would be long lasting.

[Boardwalk Editor]

Well, it's, it's interesting and I'm, I'm not going to ask you to sort of get into the head of the Iranian leadership here, but I mean, the conventional wisdom is why would they want to broaden the war? Right. Why bring in the Gulf countries by attacking the Gulf countries? Why do that? And I'm guessing that they recognize that it would put pressure on those Gulf countries to put them, put pressure on Donald Trump to stop what's happening here.

[Aaron Banko]

Seems like a reasonable tactic, no? I don't know what the Iranians are thinking. I would imagine that they're thinking in line with how any regime would be thinking when they're attacked, which is how do we maximize damage on the people who are attacking us? I think ultimately we just, you know, Trump said today in the Oval Office with the spray in the, in the spray in the Oval Office earlier that, oh, this thing is going to wrap up soon. I mean, maybe, I don't know, or maybe not and soon. Who knows what that means.

[Boardwalk Editor]

They're also requesting $200 billion for it.

[Aaron Banko]

I mean, that doesn't, which he said like, oh, wasn't necessarily just for Iran. So there are a lot of questions about what that funding would actually be for.

[Boardwalk Editor]

Right. Okay.

[Sam Stein]

Well, you cover.

[Boardwalk Editor]

I know we've had this conversation about the definition of imminence, but it is, it is a question. So you've been covering, obviously, Tulsa Gabbard, who is the chief intel officer, she was up on the Hill today with the others for the world Worldwide Threat Assessment hearings today and yesterday, frankly.

[Sam Stein]

Let's just play this, this exchange she

[Boardwalk Editor]

had with John Osoft, which I thought was kind of interesting.

[Sam Stein]

Obviously the, I guess the context here

[Boardwalk Editor]

that people should know is that Tulsia came into this administration as an avowed pacifist when it came to Middle east wars. I mean, she literally sold T shirts warning against war with Iran and made a name for herself politically by talking about forever wars in the Middle east and how horrible they were. And so she's in this position where she's basically functionary for Donald Trump as he wages a war in Iran. And she, her deputy, her top deputy, Joe Kent, quit spectacularly with a letter that was more or less blaming Israel and Jews for getting Trump into this thing, but he still quit. And now the pressure is kind of on Tulsi to see what she. She's going to do. And she's been kind of me mouthed about this. She hasn't really said much about how her personal things about the war, but she was pressed by Jon Ossoff about whether there was an actual imminent threat. And here's how it went.

[John 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, Senator?

[Tulsi Gabbard]

The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.

[John Ossoff]

False. This is the worldwide. This is the worldwide threats hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely, objective, and independent of political considerations. You've stated today that the intelligence community's assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated and that, quote, there had been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. Was it the intelligence community's assessment that nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?

[Tulsi Gabbard]

It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.

[John Ossoff]

That is up to the. Here's the problem. No, it is. It is precisely that he received. It is precisely your responsibility.

[Boardwalk Editor]

I don't. Is she right? That doesn't seem right to me.

[Aaron Banko]

I mean, she's splitting hairs. I think the argument that Tulsi's making is one that, like, intelligence officials, I think have, you know, rightly made in the right context previously, which is that we are not policymakers. We are supposed to be independent from politics and we are supposed to be objective.

[Boardwalk Editor]

And I think no one's asking her about policy preferences here. They're asking about threat assessments.

[Aaron Banko]

Right. But I think, like, and I'm not saying this, I'm not saying her argument is sound, but I think what she's trying to do there is parse hairs and say. Well, because this, like, imminence word is connected to policy. I'm not going to talk about it. Right. And so, but all the, but she did answer questions throughout that hearing and the hearing today in which she was asked questions about how, you know, how long would it take for Iran should it be their intention to build a ballistic missile that would hit the homeland? And she's, I think she said something about several years, Ratcliffe said similar things. So if you read between the lines, you could see that both on the nuclear program and the ballistic missile program issues, neither of them were imminent threats. But I think people are just, I think people are missing the point. Like, again, I don't think Trump cared about the imminence of the threats. I'm not saying people shouldn't, but I don't think Trump did. And I think why it's important, obviously, is because of international law and the law of war and the ways in which you go about attacking another country. And there are so many legal experts out there that can speak to that better than I can. But what I think people are missing is that like, okay, so if, if Trump didn't really care necessarily about like the imminent part of the threats that they, he just looked at them as national security threats that were growing and potentially long term threats against the US what he was really focused on then was the regime about the Supreme Leader and the people that they took out. No, but this is important because their messaging has been the Israelis want regime change. That is their thing. Like, we're not after regime change. That is not part of our goal.

[Sam Stein]

Well, let's play that clip because that's

[Boardwalk Editor]

the other clip we have from Tulsi where she's asked about the objectives of the Israelis in the United States and she acknowledges that they differ.

[Interviewer]

My question is what does the intelligence community assess Israel's goals in this war to be and are those goals aligned with the goals of the United States?

[Boardwalk Editor]

Long pause.

[Aaron Banko]

It's a good question.

[Tulsi Gabbard]

I'm thinking carefully here about what can be said in this open setting versus a closed setting.

[Interviewer]

Are the goals aligned?

[Tulsi 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.

[Interviewer]

And how do they differ?

[Tulsi Gabbard]

We can see through the operations that the Israeli government has been focused on disabling the Iranian leadership and taking out several members, obviously beginning with the Ayatollah, the supreme Leader, and they continue to focus on that effort.

[Interviewer]

How does that differ from our goals?

[Tulsi Gabbard]

The president has stated that his objectives are to destroy Iran's ballistic missile launching capability. Their ballistic missile Production capability and their navy, the IRGC navy and mine laying capability.

[Boardwalk Editor]

So why is that significant?

[Aaron Banko]

The public messaging on it is different. She's stating what is publicly out there. But I guess what I would just to back up for a second, what I'm saying is like, let's put aside the imminent conversation. Like, there wasn't an imminent threat. Radcliffe basically confirmed that. Tulsi basically confirmed that. 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? And so what we know about those final days right before Trump says go is that they get new intelligence about the Supreme Leader and this becomes like the focal point for the days leading up to that campaign. And so Trump, you know, based on our reporting, goes and starts this war because he can be part of an operation that takes out.

[Boardwalk Editor]

Yes, there's a contradiction here because here we have Tulsi saying that the Israelis publicly want regime change and we publicly want to get rid of ballistic missiles and a threat that could exist.

[Aaron Banko]

And your reporting is a contradiction that we should probably talk about.

[Sam Stein]

And your reporting is saying that Trump

[Boardwalk Editor]

had an opportunity to do regime change.

[Sam Stein]

And whether out of personal pique or

[Boardwalk Editor]

just fascination with the idea he did it.

[Sam Stein]

And so, and also, of course, they've been talking.

[Aaron Banko]

Or was he just killing a guy that was trying to kill him? Like, whether or not it led to regime change was like another, another thing. Right. He knew from his intelligence assessments that should we kill any of these top guys, regime change is not likely to happen.

[Boardwalk Editor]

So, yes, that's true.

[Aaron Banko]

I think they go into this pretty bright eyed that even the Israelis now have come out and said regime change isn't necessarily on, you know, in the short term going to happen.

[Sam Stein]

Okay, well, that gets me to my final question, which is we're here now. It's, it's a mess.

[Boardwalk Editor]

I mean, I don't think anyone, my guest, Pete Hegseth, would say it's a smashing success, but it's a mess. The options are not particularly good. It doesn't appear. I mean, you could, I suppose, just say, hey, we did what we need to do and back out, but we'd still need to open the Strait of Hormuz somehow. What, what, what are like the, what are the, what are the off ramps here? Are there off ramps?

[Aaron Banko]

I think there have been off ramps previously. I think there, there's every Friday there's like an off ramp. Right. Because the markets close and you can take the weekend to say mission accomplished. And pull out and markets reopen on Monday and maybe the markets stabilize. I mean, it's. All of this is really now a question of, I mean, at least in the U.S. like, what happens to gas breaks, prices, how does this affect us politically for the midterms and how do we pull out of this thing looking like we've done enough and mission accomplished without sort of passing this threshold of no return on the, on the market end of things. And so much of this is. Is about the Strait of Hormuz, to your point. And I just don't know of any good option for dealing with the Strait of Hormuz beyond pulling out of Iran.

[Boardwalk Editor]

Well, the other option is putting American troops onto the.

[Aaron Banko]

Okay, so this gets us to the

[Boardwalk Editor]

troop island, but those aren't good options. No, they're horrible options. I mean, 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.

[Aaron Banko]

Yeah. And so now, I mean, there are a couple of things that he could do. He could send troops into, try to, you know, deal with the Strait to the shores of the Strait of Hormuz. He could send people onto Carg island, which is the island with basically like Iran's beating energy heart, which he has just over the last week bombed. He could, you know, put troops there to control that island, which I think Besant said today publicly, like, should Carg island become a US Asset, which had everyone confused. Like, what do you mean occupying Carg Island? What do you mean becoming a U.S. asset? That. That's a huge question mark. And then the third option is, you know, he could, as news reports have stated, send troops in to do nuclear containment work to get the nuclear material out of Iran, which is like one of the riskiest operations anybody has, which also the Americans and the Israelis have gamed out and practiced and been educated on for, for years and years and years. Like, 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.

[Boardwalk Editor]

Wow. Thank you for this uplifting conversation. I appreciate it. We're going to keep tabs on this. Obviously. We're recording, as you said, Friday presents an opportunity for an off ramp. We're recording this on Thursday afternoon. I think it's going to be posted on Thursday evening. So we'll see.

[Sam Stein]

I mean, honest.

[Boardwalk Editor]

I think you're right about one thing, which is with Trump, it's the markets that really dictate a lot. I mean, we see it time and again that he gets spooked by those things. So we'll see if that happens here.

[Aaron Banko]

But yeah, markets and gas prices at the pump. Those are his two have always been, if you look back over years and years, have always been what he has talked about most publicly and really latched onto when it comes to foreign policy.

[Boardwalk Editor]

All right, we'll keep monitoring it.

[Sam Stein]

Aaron Banko, thank you so much for doing this.

[Boardwalk Editor]

Appreciate it. We'll have you back more regularly, I promise, because you're very insightful and your reporting's really good. You guys should check her out at Reuters and you should subscribe to the Bulwark because we have good conversations with people just like Aaron.

[Sam Stein]

Aaron, thanks so much. Talk to you soon.

[Tyler Redick / Ryan Seacrest]

It is Ryan Seacrest here. There was a recent social media trend which consisted of flying on a plane with no music, no movies, no entertainment. But a better trend would be going to chumbacasino.com it's like having a mini social casino in your pocket. Chumba casino has over 100 online casino style games, all absolutely free. It's the most fun you can have online and on a plane. So grab your free welcome bonus [e-mail] sponsored by Chumba Casino. No purchase necessary VGW Group Void where

[Bayard Winthrop]

prohibited by law 21 terms and conditions apply. This is Bayard Winthrop, founder of American Giant. I started this company because I was fed up with cheap clothes that didn't last and companies that shipped manufacturing overseas. We believed we could still make incredible clothes. Clothing right here in the US With American cotton and American workers earning real wages. That's what we stand for. Making clothes that actually last. Get 20% off your first order when you use code [e-mail] warning the following

[Tyler Redick / Ryan Seacrest]

ZipRecruiter radio spot you are about to

[Tire Rack Announcer]

hear is going to be filled with

[ZipRecruiter Announcer]

F words when you're hiring. We at ZipRecruiter know you can feel frustrated, forlorn even, like your efforts are futile. And you can spend a fortune trying to find fabulous people, only to get flooded with candidates who are just fine. Fortunately, ZipRecruiter figured out how to fix all that and right now you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com Zip with ZipRecruiter you can forget your frustrations because we find the right people for your roles fast, which is our absolute favorite F word. In fact, four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.

[Tyler Redick / Ryan Seacrest]

Fantastic.

[ZipRecruiter Announcer]

So whether you need to hire four, 40 or 400 people, get ready to meet first rate talent. Just go to ZipRecruiter.com Zip to try ZipRecruiter for free. Don't forget that's ZipRecruiter.com Zip finally, that's ZipRecruiter.Com Zip.