Defines 'meaningful deal' ambiguity: could be like Gaza (short on details) or JCPOA (detailed, lengthy). Notes 10-day timeframe only allows for deal in principle, not detailed scope, due to mismatch between Iranian negotiation style and Trump administration's pressure for quick action.

Confirms largest buildup since 2003. Lack of clear objective for potential force adds to global insecurity and jitters. Past US strikes (Soleimani, nuclear facilities) were specific with contained Iranian response; current situation could lead to larger, less contained conflict.

US is militarily superior. Iran retains missile capabilities, likely focus of any initial US strike. Concern is impact on US Gulf allies. Notes Iran's Strait of Hormuz exercise raises nervousness due to 20% of world oil passing through.

Core issue is unclear US objective. Regime change is a possible scenario, akin to Iraq 2003, which would lead to prolonged, open-ended US engagement to fill security vacuum.

Acknowledges risk but not central one. Near-term expectation: 1) Real push for a deal (10-day window not definitive), 2) If military force, it will target ballistic missiles. Regime toppling is a risk but not the largest current exposure.