Katty Kay

You wouldn't have had American army bases in the region hit.

And apparently the reporting is coming out at the moment that they've been much worse hit than we were led to believe.

So you wouldn't have had that.

You obviously wouldn't have lost the lives of the Americans who have been involved in this.

And we don't know how many injured because the Pentagon won't tell us how many injured.

You wouldn't have had the losses of life that you've had in Iran.

You wouldn't have had a school being hit and children being killed there.

in those strikes, you wouldn't have had the loss of American prestige around the world.

You wouldn't have increased the rift between the Americans and the Europeans, which was bad and has now got a lot worse.

And you would have been in the same position where Iran was not producing nuclear material and actually under the JCPOA when it was still

operating, the inspectors were going in regularly and saying, no, the Iranians were not in violation.

They sped up their uranium production after America pulled out of the JCPOA.

So I don't know which of those sounds like it would have been worse than the situation we're in now.

The counter-argument

that I have heard from Republicans on the Hill who are Trump-aligned is, well, we've decimated their missile supplies, so we've made it harder for them to attack their neighbors.

They weren't really attacking their neighbors at that point anyway, and they've still got half of their missile supply, according to intelligence sources, which they're keeping underground.

So we haven't decimated their missile supply, but we've set them back economically.

We may have

increased the clout of the hardliners in the regime and given the regime an extended lease of life.

So you tell me, Anthony, is there anything that I've just ticked off that sounds to you like it would have been worse?