They were "allegedly obliterated" by bombing the relevant facilities, which is exactly my point.

I'm honestly not sure what the goals were/are on the current Iran campaign. I'm not sure the White House knows exactly, which is a very concerning thing.

If it was a campaign to inflict lasting economic damage on Iran by choking its income streams, or perform a boots on the ground regime change, or to cover for a land operation to extract nuclear materials, we would see different events.

But what we saw instead was a very successful strike campaign and no follow-up. No strait seizure, no land operation. I have a lingering suspicion that the assumption was "Iran will want to negotiate after the first strike exchange" and that assumption was proven wrong fast. And I already made my distaste for "only plan for the absolute best case scenario" clear.