imminent

Former US defense official Michael Mulroy breaks down the US justification for striking Iran, while some US officials say there were no immediate threats.

According to President Trump, the United States attacked Iran because the Iranian regime posed “imminent threats” to the U.S. and its allies, including through its use of terrorist proxies and continued pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world,” he said in a recorded statement Saturday.

According to leading Democrats in Congress, Trump’s justification is questionable, especially given his claims of having “completely obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities in separate U.S. bombings last year.

“Everything I have heard from the administration before and after these strikes on Iran confirms this is a war of choice with no strategic endgame,” said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and part of a small group of congressional leaders — the Gang of Eight — who were briefed on the operation by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

That divide is bound to remain an issue politically heading into this year’s midterm elections, and could be a liability for Republicans — especially considering that some in the “America First” wing of the MAGA base were raising their own objections, citing Trump’s 2024 campaign pledges to extricate the U.S. from foreign wars, not start new ones.

The debate echoed a similar if less immediate one around President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, also based on claims that “weapons of mass destruction” posed an immediate threat. Those claims were later disproved by multiple findings that Iraq had no such arsenal, fueling recriminations from both political parties for years.

The latest divide also intensified unease over Congress ceding its wartime powers to the White House, which for years has assumed sweeping authority to attack foreign adversaries without direct congressional input in the name of addressing terrorism or preventing immediate harm to the nation or its troops.

Even prior to the weekend bombings, Democrats including Sen. Adam Schiff of California were pushing Congress to pass a resolution barring the Trump administration from attacking Iran without explicit congressional authorization.

“President Trump must come to Congress before using military force unless absolutely necessary to defend the United States from an imminent attack,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the armed services and foreign relations committees, said in a statement Thursday.

In justifying the daylight strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei just two days later, Trump accused the Iranian government of having “waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder” for nearly half a century — including through attacks on U.S. military assets and commercial shipping vessels abroad — and of having “armed, trained and funded terrorist militias” in multiple countries, including Hezbollah and Hamas.

Trump said that after the U.S. bombed Iran last summer, it had warned Tehran “never to resume” its pursuit of nuclear weapons. “Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland,” he said.

Other Republican leaders largely backed the president.

“The United States did not start this conflict, but we will finish it. If you kill or threaten Americans anywhere in the world — as Iran has — then we will hunt you down, and we will kill you,” said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“Every president has talked about the threat posed by the Iranian regime. President Trump is the one with the courage to take bold, decisive action,” said Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi.

While Iran’s coordination with and sponsorship of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas are well known, Trump’s claims about its ongoing development of nuclear weapons systems are less established — and the administration has provided little evidence to back them up.

Democrats seized on that lack of fresh intelligence in their responses to the attacks, contrasting Trump’s latest claims about imminent threats with his assertion after the separate summer bombings that the U.S. had all but eliminated Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

“Let’s be clear: The Iranian regime is horrible. But I have seen no imminent threat to the United States that would justify putting American troops in harm’s way,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of the Gang of Eight. “What is the motivation here? Is it Iran’s nuclear program? Their missiles? Regime change?”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that the Trump administration “has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and immediacy of the threat,” and must do so.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the Trump administration needs congressional authority to wage such attacks barring “exigent circumstances,” and didn’t have it.

“The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” he said.

After the U.S. military announced Sunday that three U.S. service personnel were killed and five others seriously wounded in the attacks, the demands for a clearer justification and new constraints on Trump only increased.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) said Sunday he is optimistic that Democrats will be unified in trying to pass the war powers resolution, and also that some Republicans will join them, given that the strikes have been unpopular among a portion of the MAGA base.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who partnered with Khanna to force the release of the Epstein files, has said he will work with him again to push a congressional vote on war with Iran, which he said was “not ‘America First.’”

Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, said that whether or not Iran represented an “imminent” threat to the U.S. depends not just on its nuclear capabilities, but on its broader desire and ability to inflict pain on the U.S. and its allies — as was made clear to both the U.S. and Israel after the Hamas attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which Iran praised.

“If you are Israel or the United States, that’s imminent,” he said.

What happens next, Radd said, will largely depend on whether remaining Iranian leaders stick to Khamenei’s hard-line policies, or decide to negotiate anew with the U.S. He expects they might do the latter, because “it’s a fundamentalist regime, it’s not a suicidal regime,” and it’s now clear that the U.S. and Israel have the capabilities to take out Iranian leaders, Iran has little ability to defend itself, and China and Russia are not rushing to its aid.

How the strikes are viewed moving forward may also depend on what those leaders decide to do next, said Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology who teaches courses on Iran and Middle East politics at the UCLA International Institute.

If the conflict remains relatively contained, it could become a political win for Trump, with questions about the justification falling away. But if it spirals out of control, such questions are only likely to grow, as occurred in Iraq when things started to deteriorate there, he said.

Israel and the U.S. are currently betting that the conflict will remain manageable, which could turn out to be true, Harris said, but “the problem with war is you never really know what might happen.”

On Sunday, Iran launched retaliatory attacks on Israel and the wider Gulf region. Trump said the campaign against Iran continued “unabated,” though he may be willing to negotiate with the nation’s new leaders. It was unclear when Congress might take up the war powers measure.

Though no deal was reached to end Iran’s nuclear arms ambitions, U.S. and Iranian officials both expressed cautious optimism after the third round of negotiations between the two nations concluded today. Even as the talks were underway in Geneva, more American military assets pushed toward the Middle East. On Thursday, the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford left Souda Bay on the Greek-owned island of Crete and will reportedly arrive off the Israeli coast as early as Friday. In addition, more F-35A Lighting II stealth fighters and F-15E Strike Eagle multirole fighters are on their way across the Atlantic for likely deployment to the region.

You can get a good sense of the state of play in this situation in our deep dive here.

The third round of indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran in Geneva ended inconclusively Thursday. 

“We have finished the day after significant progress in the negotiation between the United States and Iran,” Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who is moderating the talks, stated on X. “We will resume soon after consultation in the respective capitals. Discussions on a technical level will take place next week in Vienna. I am grateful to all concerned for their efforts: the negotiators, the IAEA, and our hosts the Swiss government.”

U.S. and Iranian officials offered positive assessments of the negotiations.

Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi:

Today’s round was the best among the rounds so far. We clearly presented our demands to the American side.

Technical talks will be held on Monday to discuss detailed specifics.

We achieved good progress on the nuclear file and sanctions… pic.twitter.com/r5dEvvmYJn

— Clash Report (@clashreport) February 26, 2026

At issue is the future of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, but the negotiations do not involve Iran’s ballistic missile program, which the Trump administration is now saying could threaten the U.S. homeland in the near future. More about that later in this story. The U.S. is reportedly demanding that Iran destroy its Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites, deliver all enriched uranium to the U.S., agree to zero enrichment of its uranium, but can keep the Tehran reactor. In addition, the Trump administration is demanding that any deal be permanent and is offering Iran minimal sanctions relief, with more if the country is compliant with these demands. 

Here the demands US brought to Iran in Geneva:

1) Destroy all 3 nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan

2) Deliver all enriched uranium to US

3) No sunset clauses

4) Zero enrichment, but can keep Tehran reactor

5) Minimal sanctions relief up front; more if Iran compliant

— Alex Ward (@alexbward) February 26, 2026

For its part, Iran “is unwilling to transfer any enriched uranium outside the country,” the official Iranian Press TV news outlet reported on Thursday. While the U.S. delegation demands all existing stockpiles be handed over, Iran insists that the enriched uranium should remain safeguarded within its borders.

“Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said Iran remained ‘crystal clear’ that it would ‘under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon,’ while also recognising the right of Iran’s people to the benefits of ‘peaceful nuclear technology,’” Al Jazeera reported.

The negotiations are taking place in the wake of statements by Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio laying out the administration’s case against Iran. Both warned that Iran is developing weapons that can strike the U.S. and has the means and intent to strike its assets, and those of allies, in the Middle East.

PRESIDENT TRUMP on IRAN: My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy, but one thing is certain: I will NEVER allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror to have a nuclear weapon.

We have to be strong. It’s called peace through strength. pic.twitter.com/0CPKHtvQDt

— Department of State (@StateDept) February 25, 2026

SECRETARY RUBIO on IRAN: For a country facing sanctions, whose economy is in tatters, whose people are suffering, somehow they still find the money to invest in missiles of greater capacity every year. This is an unsustainable threat. pic.twitter.com/LGZJxPG33w

— Department of State (@StateDept) February 26, 2026

Meanwhile, the Trump administration reportedly would like to see Israel attack first to give the U.S. political cover.

“There’s thinking in and around the administration that the politics are a lot better if the Israelis go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us, and give us more reason to take action,” Politico stated. 

“The argument in Israel is that this would be a terrible strategic mistake, as it creates a lose-lose situation: if the strike fails, Israel would be blamed for dragging the United States into the conflict,” a high-ranking IDF official told us. “Israel would be accused of being a warmonger, a source of destruction and regional war, rather than a country seeking to reach an agreement. Israel could find itself completely isolated. This reflects the general discourse on the issue.”

This issue should be taken with a degree of skepticism since much of the behind-the-scenes reporting has been highly inaccurate.

Report: White House insiders say a first strike by Israel on Iran might create the optics needed to justify US military action.https://t.co/EszY1krx5r

— Jerusalem Post (@Jerusalem_Post) February 26, 2026

“Many actions are being carried out on the home front, among civilians, in order to protect them from missile strikes,” the IDF official added. “At the same time, there is very significant military readiness along the borders.”

While the Trump administration is pushing Iran to accept the deal or risk an attack, Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged Thursday “to force a vote next week on legislation to restrict President Donald Trump from attacking Iran without congressional approval,” Politico pointed out, adding that “the White House is already mobilizing to try and defeat it.”

The move by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his leadership team “will compel a tough and close vote for lawmakers as the Trump administration ramps up pressure on Tehran,” the outlet added.

JUST IN: House Dem leaders say the plan to force a vote on bipartisan Iran war powers legislation from Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie “as soon as Congress reconvenes next week.” pic.twitter.com/IxO7DSwQAT

— Connor O’Brien (@connorobrienNH) February 26, 2026

The sabre rattling and internal political machinations come as the U.S. has built up a massive force that includes two aircraft carrier strike groups and several other warships.

There are reports that the Ford, on a twice-extended deployment that has seen it enter the Mediterranean for the second time since departing Norfolk on June 24, 2025, will dock in Haifa, Israel. However, that seems dubious given that placing an aircraft carrier at a fixed location like that would make it a very attractive and high-volume target for an Iranian attack. The carrier would not benefit from its own defenses, and to a lesser degree, that of its escorts, when in port, as well.

There have been suggestions that the Ford’s Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer escorts will help provide protection for Israel against anticipated Iranian barrages. The Ford’s F/A-18E-F Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growler electronic warfare jets could also be used to attack Iran, but would have to fly across Israel or Lebanon, Syria or Jordan, and Iraq, to reach Iranian territory.

Haifa “suffered significant damage” during the 12-Day War in June, “with dozens injured from missile fire and structural damage to homes and municipality buildings,” the Jerusalem Post reported. “Haifa is home to the Israel Navy headquarters and the largest oil refinery in Israel, which was hit during the war, forcing a partial, temporary shutdown of some secondary facilities.”

The Pentagon’s first kamikaze drone unit is ready to participate if Trump decides to launch strikes on Iran, Bloomberg News reported, citing U.S. officials and analysts. The drone unit is known as Task Force Scorpion. It’s now ready for operations, U.S. Central Command spokesman Capt. Tim Hawkins told the news outlet in an emailed statement.

“We established the squadron last year to rapidly equip our warfighters with new combat drone capabilities that continue to evolve,” he said.

The U.S. military set up Task Force Scorpion late last year as the first operational unit armed with Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (LUCAS) kamikaze drones, a design reverse-engineered from the Iranian-designed Shahed-136, in the Middle East. The establishment was seen as a major development, and offers a way “to flip the script on Iran,” according to a U.S. official. Last year, TWZ laid out a detailed case for why America’s armed forces should be investing heavily in rapidly-produced Shahed-136 clones as an adaptable capability that could be critical in future operations globally, as you can read here.

Just in: The Pentagon’s first kamikaze drone unit is ready to participate if President Donald Trump decides to launch strikes on Iran, according to US officials and analysts. https://t.co/DOPGwxi339

— Anthony Capaccio (@ACapaccio) February 26, 2026

In addition to the ships, scores of tactical jets, refuelers, airborne control planes, and other aircraft have already surged to the Middle East and Europe, with more on the way. At least another 12 F-35As from Hill Air Force Base in Utah, and six F-15Es each from Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina are heading to Europe. That’s ahead of a likely deployment to the Middle East.

Aviation photographer Acr Explorer was kind enough to share images of F-35As and F-22s seen at Lakenheath Air Base in the U.K. on Thursday.

The large influx of U.S. airpower has left U.S. bases in the region crowded and is one reason that F-22 Raptor stealth fighters have been deployed to Israel. Another is the likelihood that Israel will be fully integrated into any U.S. attack on Iran.

Beyond the Middle East and Europe, the U.S. is also building up forces at Diego Garcia, its Indian Ocean island outpost, which has been used as a bomber base in previous conflicts. As we noted yesterday, F-16CM fighters from the 35th Fighter Wing recently arrived on the island from Misawa Air Base in Japan. These would be key assets in defending the island from a possible Iranian attack. There is also indications that a bomber deployment to the base could be imminent. However, there are political questions to be solved before the base can be used for a strike on Iran. As we reported last week, the United Kingdom has apparently said it would not allow the use of the island for strikes on Iran, although Prime Minister Keir Starmer could still change his mind. You can read more about the force-protection mission at Diego Garcia — increasingly threatened by Iranian long-range attack drones and missiles — in our previous reporting.

While the talks between Washington and Tehran are scheduled to resume next week, remember that three days before the Operation Midnight Hammer strike on Iranian nuclear facilities last June, the White House said Trump would decide “within two weeks” about whether to strike or keep negotiating.

Though more negotiations are scheduled, Trump has acted militarily ahead of planned talks in the past. Regardless, with the Ford arriving very soon and other assets trickling into place, and fitting our own stated timeline, the window for strikes appears to be cracking open now, and will only get wider with each passing day.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The 55-year-old first joined the Scottish Premiership club in 2013 as part of Derek McInnes’ management team and went on to spend eight years at Pittodrie.

He was also McInnes’ number two with Kilmarnock before spells as manager with Dundee and Ross County but was sacked by the latter in December with his side bottom of the Championship.

“Tony has a wealth of experience and knows the Club inside out,” Pfannenstiel told his club website.

“He has excellent knowledge of the Scottish Premiership, both as a coach and a manager, and that will be invaluable for us in the short term.

“Our managerial search is now reaching its conclusion and we hope to be in a position to announce our new head coach imminently.”

Leven, who is in his third spell as caretaker and whose side sit seventh in Scotland’s top flight, welcomed Docherty’s appointment.

“It’s great to have someone of Tony’s experience back in the Aberdeen dugout for the upcoming games,” Leven added.

“He was very enthusiastic about coming in when I spoke with him and his presence and knowledge at both training and matches will be a big boost to me and the squad.”

Horneland left Saint-Etienne at the start of February with his side sitting fourth in France’s second tier.

Should Aberdeen decide to wait until the summer for the Norwegian to take charge, it will mirror the six-month delay in Thelin arriving at Pittodrie from Elfsborg in summer 2024.