This goes back to what I was stating originally: If you believe the Iranians enriched to 60%, then you can get behind this. If you don't, you'll view it as Bush Iraq. This is what I found (credit: Grok, Reuters):
But to say we are back at square one only views this through the lens of the Strait, which was never the goal. It ignores the decimation of their military, the destruction of their leadership, the complete display of force......
We still need to wait and see what the end result is.
I agree. We destroyed their military, killed their leader, and clearly demonstrated our military superiority. What I’m not sure about is what we actually gained from it. Their military was never a direct threat to us, and their leader has been replaced by someone more extreme. Everyone already knew we were vastly superior militarily.
I don’t see how this makes American taxpayers better off, even if it plays out exactly as Trump hopes. And even in the worst case scenario (that Iran was close to developing nuclear weapons, which I personally doubt) those nukes couldn’t reach the US. They could only threaten Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and others in the region.
What do you see as the optimal end result here? Iran walking away with an ironclad, verifiable agreement that they will never develop nuclear weapons? A guarantee of safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz? It’s hard for me to picture any outcome that would make this worth it for me as an American taxpayer living on the other side of the globe. I don’t directly depend on trade through that strait, and Iranian missiles can’t reach me anyway.
