Lt Col Daniel Davis: Putin NOT BACKING DOWN from Iran Support w/Steve Jermy

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

This segment features a high-level, skeptical discussion about the U.S. potentially launching an offensive military strike on Iran. While some in the administration reportedly believe the decision to attack has already been made—just delayed for logistics—the analysis here suggests there may be a deliberate pause to reassess the risks.

Key Points:

White House Reconsideration: Analysts suggest that the two-week delay in potential strikes may reflect serious second thoughts inside the White House. There’s growing concern that a rushed attack could backfire and result in a major loss for the U.S., especially after setbacks in Ukraine, against the Houthis, and in prior wars like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Diplomatic Opportunity: There's hope that figures like Wickoff—who had made previous diplomatic headway with Iran—signal a window for diplomacy instead of immediate escalation. The biggest obstacle to past deals, they argue, has been Netanyahu and hardliners within Israel.

Vulnerability of U.S. Bases: American military bases in the Middle East (e.g., Bahrain) are highly vulnerable to Iranian missile attacks. If the U.S. goes offensive, Iran is expected to retaliate aggressively.

Russia and China’s Support for Iran:

Russia has reaffirmed its military and strategic support for Iran, with Putin showing clear resolve.

China has also reportedly delivered large shipments of military aid to Iran recently.

This directly contradicts claims that "the whole world is on Trump's side."

Criticism of U.S. Political Voices:

Lindsey Graham and Newt Gingrich are pushing for full regime change in Iran, with Gingrich likening Trump-Netanyahu to Reagan-Thatcher—a comparison the analysts criticize as misguided.

The experts argue that past regime change efforts (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria) have mostly failed and repeating the same strategy without ground forces is unrealistic and dangerous.

Military Strategy Limitations:

Strategic bombardment alone won’t achieve regime change.

Effective campaigns require detailed planning, ground forces, and clear post-conflict strategies—none of which appear to be in place.

Final Message: The U.S. must break from a 25-year cycle of failed military interventions and rethink its approach. Continuing the same playbook—military-first, diplomacy-later—without learning from past failures is, in their view, strategic insanity.

Bottom line: The rhetoric for war is heating up, but behind the scenes, there may still be room—and reason—for caution and diplomacy.