Steve Yates

Well, Buck, I think that the president and his team are doing far more than any of its predecessors to kind of increase the chances of a negotiated settlement of sorts.

It's very, very difficult to see there being any security from the nuclear program.

Under the current regime, that's why the president says that if the regime were to change, that might be better.

He's not saying he's going to do it.

But the armada that is there is doing two very substantial things.

It is stopping the illegal support for the Iranian regime financially.

That has been a big vulnerability in the past.

And, of course, it has the ability to strike hard, and the president has proven a willingness to do that not very long ago.

So this should increase the chances of a negotiated settlement.

But I have to say, bottom line, I don't see this regime in Iran negotiating a good faith in an appropriate amount of time.

So I think the odds of a strike that would be an active war but not a total war, very high over the next two weeks.

Well, I completely agree that it's necessary.

We've fought off the ghosts of Iraq in many, many different ways.

But that idea of making it clear what the strategic objective is and what America's role is relative to other countries' role, very, very clear.

I think that the targets that they would hit would look more military, so it would be nuclear, but also some of the ballistic missile and other capabilities to demonstrate that we can do this and there's nothing they can do about it and knock them back a little bit to maybe buy more time and see whether they sober up for real negotiations.

There's

I think this added layer of statements that were made about the atrocities that are committed by the regime, the human rights violations, and I have deep sympathy for that, but I don't think that is the proper use of the U.S.

military.

I think that's...

the area that has to be made much, much more clear.