Laura Ingraham on the status of the ongoing conflict with Iran: <\/p>\n
LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Yeah, we gave away so much of our industrial opportunity, our industrial base. We sold it off because people, frankly, were really greedy and politicians were really stupid. And so now you’re right, President Trump, you know, he knows we have we’re playing a game of catch up. But we have an immediate problem here. The president today said no, they’re not going to keep their nuclear material. But the nuclear material, if it doesn’t move and it stays where it is, I mean, who really cares about I mean, that would be great if we get the nuclear material. But as long as it’s not enriched, why do we care if the regime is truly decimated, as we’ve heard and the military is decimated? Why isn’t this really a victory? I mean, we’re getting kind of mixed signals here on what the real truth on the ground is. FORMER U.S. NAVY LT. COMMANDER TOM SAUER: Well, sometimes I think it’s really good to maintain some strategic ambiguity. I think that’s actually very important. I’m pretty sure that we’re maintaining all options on the table, whether that means they’re forced to give it up, or when we make sure it’s contained, if it’s in the bottom of hundreds of feet of rubble, and we know that they can’t get to it, that’s one thing. Or hey, we may have to go get it ourselves. And there’s there believe it or not, there are organizations with the US military that’s been practicing and training for just such a scenario in Iran, or in North Korea for a long time. So, you know, I don’t think we’re going to telegraph what we’re going to do. I think it’s actually a good thing that we are not signaling to everyone in the world what we’re what we’re going to do. I think that’s something that’s been one of President Trump’s strengths is he can be unpredictable. INGRAHAM: So what else is strength is Tom, you know what else is strength is? I’m the peace president. And that’s that I mean, and his argument is that going into Iran confirms that he’s a peace president, because they would have had a nuclear bomb. And that would have threatened the entire region, you couldn’t let him let him have it. So So that is his argument. And I totally understand that. But we still have a political reality that he has to deal with on the ground. And, and that’s it. You can’t just can’t deny that as well. So a lot of different factors competing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n