[QUINTUS]: I had not explicitly considered Carthaginian holdings in Iberia as a possible target. But they seem unattractive for three reasons:

(1) Distance: I believe we could transport an army by sea from Sicily to Africa with no risk of interception of our troops. I believe we could make a quick crossing from Lilybaeum to Carthage in one season. However, I am not sure that the same could be true of Carthaginian holdings in Iberia. I suspect we would have to put our army to sea several seasons and thus risk interception. And note that more than one landing is likely to be necessary, if our armies are to be continually resupplied.

(2) Threat: just as Carthage may be more heavily defended, so too it may generate more of a threat to us. For example, our spies have detected two Consular sized armies in Carthage, one recently returned from Sardinia. An advantage of striking at Africa is that we will rout these armies, ending the potential threat they pose to Sicily and beyond. If we head into Iberia, it is possible those armies in Africa will again set sail for the islands or our mainland settlements.

(3) Opportunity: I believe Iberia and Carthage are at war. It might be best to let them fight it out in Iberia, while we take Africa. If we enter Iberia, we may find ourselves frustrated by Spanish forces or even blunder into war with them. By contrast, in Africa, we would only have the Carthaginians to contend with. (The Numidians may intervene, I suppose, but the harsh geography means that Egypt's large armies are unable to cross the desert coast road to Africa).