It's certainly what they want the world to believe and what they're threatening. And again, those

thousands of missiles pose a real danger. And I know that Marco Rubio and Pete Hegeseth and General

Kane are explaining the risk to the president as they should. But of course, Israel and the United

States and our friends have a massive, massive military armada in the region. And Sean, it's a lot easier to shoot the archer

before he gets off his arrow than trying to knock the arrow out of the sky.

Great analogy, which I can understand. Michael Rubin joins us now, senior fellow at the American

Enterprise Institute. That was, of course, Senator Tom Cotton, Director of Policy Analysis,

Middle East Forum.

He's specialized in the Middle East countries.

Michael, welcome.

This is a very interesting time for your area of expertise.

You wrote a column just on saying the president's got to make clear his objective.

And whatever you want to say about the last operation, George W. Bush, we knew exactly what he wanted to do, Al-Saddam.

H.W. Bush, we said he was going to make sure that Kuwait was, the forces were pushed out of Kuwait, left Saddam in power.

Their objective's got to be clear. What do you think the president's objective should be here?

I think the president's objective has to be regime change, because what the president needs to understand is that Iran's playbook has two possible plays.

One is to bog him down in negotiations until the clock runs out.

The other is to come up with some sort of agreement, which they're going to violate the second that Trump is removed from office.

And so the only security, if Trump wants his legacy to be secure, is to ensure that the Supreme Leader is gone and his regime. The problem has never been the nuclear missiles. It's

been the guys who would wield them. So how about if that's the policy, but politically, it's not

the best line to use, correct? Absolutely, it's not the best line, but here's the thing.

The president doesn't want boots on the ground.

...