The Dangerous U.S. Military Mindset Targeting Iran /Jeremy Scahill & Lt Col Daniel Davis

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

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

Jeremy Scahill argues that some U.S. officials may be overconfident after past operations (like Venezuela), believing they can destabilize or decapitate Iran’s leadership and coerce lower-level officials into making a deal. He compares this mindset to the Iraq War, citing Jay Garner, who advised keeping much of Iraq’s state structure intact after Saddam Hussein was removed. Instead, Paul Bremer pursued sweeping de-Baathification, which the speaker says fueled chaos and civil war.

He argues Iran is fundamentally different from Iraq, Libya, or Syria: since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, it has built durable institutions, has no major internal armed opposition, and opposition groups like Reza Pahlavi or the MEK lack real domestic legitimacy. Overthrowing the regime, he says, would create catastrophe in a modern, educated nation of 90 million. From this perspective, negotiation makes more sense than war.

He criticizes Mike Huckabee as strongly aligned with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accusing him of promoting hardline demands (ending nuclear enrichment, missile programs, and proxy activity). The speaker disputes claims that Iran fully controls groups like Hezbollah or Hamas.

He contends Israel has achieved major strategic gains—damaging Hamas in Gaza, weakening Hezbollah in Lebanon, benefiting from regime change in Syria, and isolating Iran—while the U.S. has backed Israeli military actions. As a result, he says Iran feels cornered and would likely respond forcefully to any U.S. strike.

Finally, he criticizes U.S. hawks like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham for suggesting regime change in Iran (and even Venezuela or Cuba) is within reach. He argues this reflects ideological overreach and neoconservative influence in Trump’s circle—contrasting it with Trump’s earlier reluctance for deeper military entanglements.