Further to the DS narrative that the nuke facilities were not destroyed etc.
If they say the possibility of nukes, is still there, then they can start making another plan to attack Iran. Hence the NEED for this counter-narrative. - to keep funding that madness.
They cannot affirm that the nuke ambtion wasn't there in the first place, so it couldn't have been destroyed - for example.
However, if this ia a WH operation, then they need to affirm that the nukes are gone, and Iran has been 'knocked back' - so we don't need to attack Iran some more, for the time being.
I think this is why Tulsi hopped on board with the 'lie' - a White lie, if you like.
Further to the DS narrative that the nuke facilities were not destroyed etc.
If they say the possibility of nukes, is still there, then they can start making another plan to attack Iran. Hence the NEED for this counter-narrative. - to keep funding that madness.
They cannot affirm that the nuke ambtion wasn't there in the first place, so it couldn't have been destroyed - for example.
However, if this ia a WH operation, then they need to affirm that the nukes are gone, and Iran has been 'knocked back' - so we don't need to attack Iran some more, for the time being.
I think this is why Tulsi hopped on board with the 'lie' - a White lie, if you like.