Nancy Youssef

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.

And without that clear objective, it is harder for the military to make plans, right?

Objectives sort of set the agenda for their strike plans.

And so until that is outlined...

How long does the United States give the Iranians to reach a deal?

How much patience does the president have for talks?

If they fail, what are the military options?