Janice Gross-Stein

So I guess I just applied a discount factor to it.

The second big one, limiting the ballistic missile program.

Never on Rudyard.

You could ask for it, but it was never going to happen because that is Iran's, as we've seen, principal measure of defense.

And why would they give that up?

That is actually asking Iran to disarm itself.

I never thought that was very likely.

And ask it to stop supporting its proxies?

Well, that is the prerogative of any state, that it can, in fact,

support its proxies and do what it wants.

The key issue here was always the nuclear program, the enriched uranium.

What hasn't been dealt with, Roger, and we'll have to see how this goes, the vast number of highly efficient centrifuges that Iran has, some of them accounted for and some of them, I think, very likely in underground facilities that inspectors have never seen.

At the end of all this, Iran's nuclear program, its capacity to make a nuclear bomb is effectively dismantled, either because inspectors will really be there on the ground, have a capacity for surprise inspection, and the stockpile of highly enriched uranium is no longer operative.

To me, that's a big game.

Could they have gotten it at the negotiating table, I think is a really telling question.

Because the United States and Israel made a decision to go to war.

And that decision, if you could make a convincing case that if they let those negotiations go forward, they would have achieved that objective, then this war is not only a war of choice, but it's an unnecessary war.

It's a counterfactual.

How will we ever know?

we end this war if we do over the next 30 to 60 days and iran's relative position now versus three months ago you know let me let me um just make a slightly different argument uh rather than you let me know what you think of it uh yesterday i read the allegedly