[fernandopj]

I'm not sure I follow your logic, but one could argue this campaign with drones and cheaper missiles taught Iran it doesn't even need a nuclear deterrent anymore.

Between this and Ukraine, the logic of a nuclear warhead deterrent might be considered a paradigm relic from 20th century.

[konschubert]

This is false. If Trump had chosen to nuke Iranian cities, Iran would have had no recourse without a proper nuclear bomb.

[fernandopj]

I agree that you are correct in this statement, althought if USA or Israel decided to nuke a country without a MAD recourse, that would be another can of worms. There's multiple reasons no country did that after Hiroshima. Even Russia refrained themselves of doing that in Ukraine after all these years.

Allow me to do a slight modification on my assessment: Iran found out they won't need a nuclear deterrent to avoid ANY future aggression; modern, cheap drones and conventional missile loadouts will do just fine. Money they would continue spending on nuclear enrichment can be better spent elsewhere, military.

[giancarlostoro]

I would be surprised if they could get it out of their airspace considering their country is heavily monitored. Every target hit was probably known for years and years, their routines and what they do.

[viewtransform]

Iran's nuclear bomb is to take out desalination plants in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia. It would be game over for the GCC.