Subject: Re: Iran - The Difference in Assessment
Because it takes facilities and live engineers to build weapons. Blow up the facilities and kill their engineers, it's much harder.

But we did that already. Back in June. It only took them a few months to get their nuclear program back to where it was a threat again. It only took them a few months to completely replenish their ballistic missile inventory.

Iran is a big country with a lot of resources - you're never going to be able to stop them from having facilities and engineers. So how does this actually stop them from having ballistic missiles or a nuclear program, if there wasn't anything stopping them after the 12 Day War?

Will we let them? That's the question. Also why this needs to play out.

Why is that the question? We're not going to be in a position to "let them" or not let them once the war is over. We'll have gone home. Iran will continue to be a big sovereign county. If we weren't in a position to not "let them" develop nukes before the current war, how will we be in a position to "let them" or not let them after the war?

This isn't a let it play out kind of question. We might have a game plan for how this stops them from being in a position to restart their nuclear program after the war, and not be able to execute the game plan - or have events interfere with the game plan. But I don't understand the game plan - what we intend to happen that would prevent them from being able to restart their nuke program. If we don't invade with a massive number of ground troops and take over Iran for ourselves, what is going to stop the Iranian government in ___ months time from just restarting their nuke program from exactly the same spot as after the June 2025 war?