War w/IRAN: CAN'T be QUICK, WON'T be SHORT! /Alexander Mercouris & Lt Col Daniel Davis

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

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

Alexander argues that Iran is trying to avoid war and is open to negotiating a new nuclear deal—possibly even a better one than the 2015 JCPOA—focused strictly on its nuclear program and sanctions relief. Iran’s foreign minister says negotiations should remain limited to nuclear issues.

However, U.S. officials, including Secretary Rubio, insist that any meaningful deal must also address Iran’s ballistic missiles, regional proxy support, internal governance, and nuclear enrichment. These broader demands—along with calls for zero enrichment—align with Netanyahu’s position and create fundamentally incompatible negotiating positions. If the U.S. maintains these demands, the speaker believes a deal will be impossible.

The analysis suggests Iran does not want war and understands the massive damage it would face, but it cannot concede on missiles, regional alliances, or internal control without risking regime collapse—especially if it believes the U.S. ultimately seeks regime change. A nuclear-only negotiation could succeed; a broader capitulation likely will not.

Militarily, while the U.S. has assembled significant air and naval power, there are no large ground forces positioned as in past Iraq wars. Historically, bombing alone rarely achieves regime change. The speaker argues Iran—larger, more populous (90 million), geographically diverse, industrially broader, and regionally connected—would likely survive an air campaign if its internal stability holds.

Comparisons to Libya are rejected. Unlike Libya (small, isolated, 6 million people), Iran is much larger, more politically complex, militarily stronger, regionally anchored, and less vulnerable to collapse from airpower combined with protests. While internal opposition exists, the speaker doubts it has the critical mass to topple the government—even with external military pressure.

Overall, the conclusion is:

A nuclear-only deal is possible.

Broader U.S. demands make agreement unlikely.

Airpower alone is unlikely to produce regime change in Iran.

A Libya-style collapse scenario is improbable.