Nancy Youssef

Look, let's say the president's right and that the strikes completely eliminated those programs, those facilities, their capability.

OK, that alone doesn't stop their ambition to have a nuclear program.

It doesn't remove all the scientists who can rebuild it.

So this is not a problem that can be solved strictly through military action because military action can't deal with those other two factors.

But also we know that it didn't happen the way that the president has described it in terms of a total elimination of the program.

That while there was damage, we have seen the Iranians through satellite images rebuilding it.

And so...

At face value of the president's statement, you can't call that an obliteration of the program.

And if you believe, as the evidence would suggest, that there was damage but not an obliteration, then also military strikes in and of themselves don't work.

That's right.

These programs don't end through strikes alone.

I get the sense from the Pentagon that they were prepared to send as many resources as possible, in part in the hopes that their presence would serve as a form of leverage, and that they are in the best position possible to defend themselves, roughly 40,000 U.S.

troops in the region, in addition to the thousands now on these aircraft carriers, destroyers, and then on the fighter jets.

So...

They first and foremost want to defend themselves, carry out whatever objective the president outlines.

But I wouldn't say that they are hopeful because that's not sort of their job in a way.

Their job is sort of preparedness for success.

multiple outcomes.

I think the challenge they're having is the same when the public is having, is there hasn't been a clear articulation of what the U.S.

wants to achieve.