I do think the IAEA needs to give the sites a look, if the Iranians will allow it (given they have now stopped doing so). And the Iranians themselves will need to assess the damage, the knowledge of which will impact their negotiating position. If the damage is devastating versus if it is only a setback will certainly influence Iranian thinking. And it may be that the only evaluation of ground truth we get will come from obtaining intel of internal Iranian evaluations.
Along these lines there will be a further refinement of the IC assessments - if Trump will ever acknowledge them if they don't show what he wants. If the sites were not as badly hit as Trump reports will he strike them again? To what end if Ishrafan can't be destroyed? Is Trump's negotiating position enhanced by the strikes as they demonstrate a willingness by the US to attack? Or is it weakened by the fact that a significant portion of Iran's capability remains seemingly safe from attack and the regime is still in power?
I hope somewhere in the administration there are some folks with both rational thought and the influence to move the US toward a peaceful solution. Not golding my breath.
As a general rule, you can't trust anything a malignant narcissist says, & trump is a proven 🤥
https://samray.substack.com/p/when-to-believe-narcissists-part-a4f
If you provide a video, pls add the transcript and present a summary of the main points in writing.
Very insightful.
I do think the IAEA needs to give the sites a look, if the Iranians will allow it (given they have now stopped doing so). And the Iranians themselves will need to assess the damage, the knowledge of which will impact their negotiating position. If the damage is devastating versus if it is only a setback will certainly influence Iranian thinking. And it may be that the only evaluation of ground truth we get will come from obtaining intel of internal Iranian evaluations.
Along these lines there will be a further refinement of the IC assessments - if Trump will ever acknowledge them if they don't show what he wants. If the sites were not as badly hit as Trump reports will he strike them again? To what end if Ishrafan can't be destroyed? Is Trump's negotiating position enhanced by the strikes as they demonstrate a willingness by the US to attack? Or is it weakened by the fact that a significant portion of Iran's capability remains seemingly safe from attack and the regime is still in power?
I hope somewhere in the administration there are some folks with both rational thought and the influence to move the US toward a peaceful solution. Not golding my breath.