Was anyone setting book on when Bibi is going to trot over to the U.S. and start beating the drums for round two?
I hope I am not misplaced with this concession, but I might have to hand it to Trump in that he doesn't seem to be in the mood to brook lip from either side.
Whether he was right or wrong ordering U.S. involvement I will wait and see, but I feel that he is now in the position to at least try to crack heads together and tell the parties that enough is enough. Rather like my parents would do when I was scrapping with my siblings. They would get to the point where they would say they did not care who started it, but it was going to end NOW... and upon that warning it usually did.
Interesting point was made by someone today that the idea of nukes has been altered a bit in recent years. If you are going to use them as a true existential deterrent, then you have to have enough to completely destroy the opponent.
North Korea could take out, for example, Seattle but then the Hermit Kingdom would dissappear 20 minutes later. It would need to take out a lot more to play the MAD game.
If a country is going to be operating below that threshold of MAD however, then a stockpile of precision weapons are much more cost and planning effective. Things that can take out specific targets and capabilities. One would think Iran would have gone down that route unless they were/are actually planning to develop and field a dozen or more weapons and delivery vehicles.
Of course in the ME it is not a matter of tomorrow, next week, or even next year, but maybe in the next decade.