►徹底打擊還是留下活口? 川普總統的選擇或將永遠改變中東地圖◄

Believe me, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, that I can tell you. Most importantly, the United States and Israel can declare with one voice that Iran must never be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon, never, ever. We affirm that Iran must never be allowed to obtain, under any circumstances, a nuclear weapon. In order to ensure, the other big move, the Iranian regime never obtains nuclear weapons. A regime with this track record must never be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. Thank you very much. Israel has successfully now targeted two of the three most major Iranian nuclear facilities. The third location, the Fordow Enrichment Plant that Jennifer Griffin was talking about, is buried deep under a mountain. This is south of Tehran. This is believed to be the most significant and secretive nuclear facility inside of Iran. In order to prevent the mullahs from getting a nuclear weapon, this facility must be destroyed. Tonight, the way I see it, there are three options. One, Israel could use a tactical nuclear weapon to wipe out the site. They don't have bunker buster bombs. That would obviously be not only highly controversial, but come with massive risks to the region. It is not a good option. Option number two, Israel can send in a team of commandos on the ground, also very risky, with a much lower chance of success. The third best option involves the United States of America, our military, which is equipped with these 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs capable of penetrating that mountain. Israel does not have this critical weapon in its arsenal, and they do not possess the large bombers that are capable of dropping an ordnance of that size. So now President Trump has a decision to make. Will he deliver the final blow to Iran's nuclear program? Will he rid the world of this clear and present danger and this existential threat? Will he end Iran's threat of nuclear terror once and for all and make the world a safer place for generations to come? This is not an easy decision for anybody. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. We are at a historic time in the Middle East. Never in our lifetimes have we been closer to a complete revolutionary fervor that gives promise of normalcy for the Middle East, and never have we been in more danger of seeing the entire region blow up. What am I referring to? I mean, that is the war right now between Iran and Israel. It is surreal. If we had this conversation five years ago, and I said to you, the Iranian nation that is huge compared to Israel, ten times the population, the Iranian nation has lost all control of the Houthi terrorists, and they are themselves neutered. Their surrogates in the West Bank, Gaza, are neutered. They're gone as a Hamas, as a fighting force. The formidable, the terrifying Hezbollah cadres, they're inert. There is no more Syria. The Assad dynasty, the pro-Iranian Syria, it's in chaos, but whatever the chaos is seems to be anti-Iranian. There is no Shia crescent, starting with Tehran, all the way to the Mediterranean. Lebanon is free of Iranian influence, so is Syria. Gaza de facto will be. There is no Russian presence. It's not a patron. It's not a protector. It's not a power in the Middle East. It's tied down in Ukraine. And Iran itself, the formidable powerhouse of the Middle East that evoked terror all over, has no defenses. And now we've seen five days of war in which the Israelis have systematically dismantled all of the Iranian missile defenses. They have air defenses. They have dismantled the terrorist hierarchy. They have dismantled the people who are responsible for the nuclear program, and we're down to a single critical issue. They have suffered casualties. The Iranians have sent over 400 ballistic missiles and drones into Israel, and 90 percent are stopped, but that 10 percent gets through. But here's the crux. All of this chaos and all of this war will be for naught if Iran's theocracy emerges intact from this war, and its nuclear infrastructure can either be quickly rebuilt, or there are elements of it that have been missed, and maybe there is enough fissionable material, if not already, soon to make another bomb. So here we are at the critical point. Should Israel continue? Does it have the ability to nullify the entire nuclear program, which was the object of this war? Or must it rely on the bunker-buster devices, bombs of the United States? And if the United States should try to go into these key nuclear facilities and blow them up with the ordnance and the aircraft that it has, which Israel lacks, will it be fighting an optional Middle East war, of which the MAGA doctrine says no more forever wars, no more intervention in the Middle East, no more ground troops? Or can Trump say, I'm not an isolationist, I'm a Jacksonian? And you should have known that when I took out Soleimani in my first term, when I took out Baghdadi, when I took out the Wagner group. I don't like to intervene, but when people threaten the United States and our deterrence is a matter of conjecture, I want to ensure that they understand the repercussions. And so is there a fight between the isolationists and the Jacksonians, or is it just a minor group of people on the right who don't want any action at all? And we don't know the answer yet. But if this war should end with the Iranian regime intact and the elements of its nuclear program recoverable, then in some ways it will be all for naught, and people will make the necessary adjustments in the Middle East. And it won't be necessarily, well, Iran is still very weak. They've lost all their terrorist surrogates. They have no air defenses. They've lost their media. They've lost their commanding. It will be more like, my gosh, Iran survived everything that Israel and by association the United States threw at it. It's indestructible. And so we're at a critical cusp. Do you risk more danger by taking out and eliminating the nuclear threat for good and by association humiliate the theocracy to the point it can be overthrown, or do you play it safe and have negotiations and allow the regime and the remnants to survive? I don't like forever wars. I don't like preemptive wars. I do not like the United States intervening anywhere in that godforsaken area. But if the war ends with the regime intact and a recoverable nuclear program, it won't just be back to square one. It will be a disaster. So we'll see what happens. And hold on, everybody. I think we're going to see things that we haven't seen in a lifetime in the Middle East. And it could turn out very bad, but it could also turn out to be quite revolutionary and remake the map of the entire region. Formidable. The army faced a formidable enemy on the battlefield, cadres. The party relies on its loyal cadres to implement policies. Patron. She was a regular patron of the local art gallery. Crux. The crux of the issue lies in the lack of communication. For naught. All his efforts to stop the bill were for naught. Deterrence. Nuclear weapons are often seen as a means of deterrence. Conjecture. His theory is based on pure conjecture, not facts. Repercussions. The decision could have serious repercussions for the economy. Intact. Despite the crash, the black box remained intact. Cusp. The country is on the cusp of major political change. If you enjoy this content, please consider subscribing to my channel to stay up to date with future videos. Thank you for watching.