IF ATTACKED - IRAN WON'T HOLD BACK /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Brian Thomas

** NEW MERCH ** Jackets & Sweatshirts, Thermo Mugs!!

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

The U.S. and Iran are fundamentally talking past each other. Washington is demanding negotiations that include Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles, regional proxies, and internal human rights. Iran has been explicit that it will only discuss nuclear enrichment limits, not missiles or proxies—because those are the backbone of its national defense. Expecting Iran to negotiate those away is unrealistic.

Why negotiations are failing:

U.S. officials set four non-starter demands.

Iran agreed to talk only about enrichment, and only in a “win-win” deal with sanctions relief.

Missiles and proxies are Iran’s main deterrents; giving them up would mean surrendering its defense for nothing.

Iran has been clear: no war unless attacked.

Military reality:

The U.S. has overwhelming military power in the region, but Iran has demonstrated capabilities to inflict massive damage:

Ballistic missiles

Swarming drones

Attacks on U.S. bases and Israeli targets

U.S. and Israeli air defenses can reduce incoming attacks, but cannot stop all of them.

Iran is large (much bigger than Iraq), with dispersed missile forces that are extremely hard to eliminate without a ground war—which the U.S. is not prepared to fight.

Why this is more dangerous than past strikes:

In the prior “12-day war,” the U.S. framed attacks as limited to nuclear facilities.

Iran restrained itself to avoid triggering full-scale war.

Now, U.S. rhetoric signals regime change, giving Iran every incentive to unleash everything it has immediately.

If Iran believes its survival is at stake, it won’t hold back.

Legal and political issue:

A full-scale attack aimed at destroying Iran’s leadership and military would clearly be a war, requiring congressional authorization.

That authorization is unlikely, raising constitutional concerns.

Attrition and escalation risks:

In a long war, the U.S. would likely “win” militarily—but at enormous cost:

Heavy casualties

Depleted missile and defense stockpiles

Risk of being unable to respond to crises in Europe or Asia

Iran would likely strike not just military targets, but high-casualty civilian or economic targets if facing destruction.

Who benefits most:

The conflict primarily serves Israeli security interests, not U.S. national security.

Netanyahu’s pressure on Washington is seen as a key driver.

The U.S. gains little while absorbing most of the cost and risk.

Ukraine comparison:

Large powers struggle even against smaller opponents when wars drag on.

Russia’s slow, methodical approach in Ukraine shows how attrition favors patience, manpower, and industrial depth.

The lesson: wars are harder, longer, and costlier than expected—even for superpowers.

Bottom line:

There is no upside for the United States in attacking Iran. Negotiations fail because U.S. demands are unrealistic, and war would bring massive regional chaos, high casualties, constitutional violations, and strategic overextension—largely for objectives that don’t directly benefit America.