Mike Baker

Meaning, where is it?

Well, that's the central question at the heart of all of this.

The facilities themselves may have been heavily damaged or destroyed, but the roughly 970 pounds enriched to near weapons grade levels remain one of the most important pieces of Tehran's nuclear program.

And with that question in mind, Kane presented the options directly with President Trump.

But after reviewing the proposals, Trump ultimately decided against such an operation.

As the source familiar with the planning put it, there were simply, quote, lots of risks.

Really?

There's a statement of the obvious, including the possibility of significant American casualties.

So, what exactly were military planners looking at?

Well, for starters, the answer was not a quick commando raid.

In fact, the source described the challenge in remarkably blunt terms, saying, "...it would be insanely difficult to fish through those tunnels.

We'd have to set up a massive presence.

Essentially, we'd have to invade."

And what that implies is hundreds, if not thousands, of American operators entering hostile territory, deploying heavy machinery and earth movers, searching tunnel complexes, locating uranium that experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency believe may still exist in gaseous form, securing it, and then somehow getting it back out of Iran before Tehran could respond.

Mm-hmm.

That, of course, assumes that near-weapons-grade material could, in fact, be located.

According to a source familiar with the guidance, the operation was assessed as falling between, quote, high and, quote, extreme on the military's acceptable risk scale for special operations forces.

There was also political reality at play here.

The president reportedly questioned whether Americans would support another military ground commitment in the Middle East.

Speaking to Fox News about a separate potential military option with Iran, Trump said, quote, I don't know if America has the stomach for it.