I read his letter, it didn’t say there would be a day in the future where attacking Iran would be easier with less consequences.

All it said was since we fumbled prior conflicts we should stay out.

We did not attack Afghanistan and Iraq because a 47 year opportunity presented itself.

The “regime” doesn’t have to change the new leader will scrap the nuke program like we scrapped the space shuttle program and the uniforms will say IRG to protect their pride.

He doesn’t care how close they are or aren’t, they have to stop pursuing interest in nukes, give up the enriched material, to make the bombs stop.

They had weeks of negotiations to give up the material knowing their centrifuges were destroyed, when enough leaders have died someone will give it up.

I see this as a huge possibility unfortunately.

Could have threatened that on the first day.

How come “boots on the ground” operation to go retrieve the enriched material is less likely.

Bag a W with a picture on truth social.

Why is an apocalyptic ending more interesting than an actual ending.

Iran has been "just weeks away" from a nuke for 30 years, according to Israel.

Geeze it was joke, if you're projecting crap on yourselves, that's on you. I've said repeatedly that *I* did not want to get into this. I do recognize that we have to see it through now... Basically Leeeroooy Jenkins!

And according to Iran’s negotiators too, most recently. It was either true or perhaps the stupidest bluff in the history of negotiations.

IMO (and in my experience) it's far more likely that IL would do the nuking.

It is likely they would do so with us trying to slam on the brakes to avoid it. We might have already talked them off the edge once or twice.

That is a possible scenario, within the realm of practical. Complex and challenging to be sure, and not assured of 100% success. But even partial success would set them back that much further.

It's also easier now with air dominance.

What IL says isn't necessarily what IL knows or suspects.

What matters is what they suspect... ultimately they will intervene if the timeline is known or suspected to be short. The consequences to them of missing the window would be loss of Tel Aviv... therefore existential.

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

We'll only know the "facts" when the midnight sun rises, at which point it's too late.

You can reasonably infer their likely future behavior from the past behavior and circumstances. Their neighbors have attacked them multiple times over the decades. Although their neighbor states are neutral or friendly in 2026, the issue is proxies which is to say Iran.

But the US president and a couple others would actually know in advance... extremely unlikely that IL would use nukes without at least a courtesy call, and a final opportunity to discuss. As I've said this may happened in the past, I'm confident that it did at least once although that might have a bluff on the part of IL to encourage our behavior in a certain direction.