John Mearsheimer American Risks from a Drawn Out War

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

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

John Mearsheimer argues that trying to spark separatism inside Iran—especially by backing Kurds or Azerbaijanis—would be extremely risky and likely counterproductive.

Turkey would strongly oppose it, fearing Kurdish independence could destabilize not just Iran, but also Turkey and Iraq.

Any attempt to insert small numbers of U.S. forces to support uprisings would likely fail.

But if small deployments fail, the pressure would grow to send more troops—leading to a deeper “boots on the ground” war that President Trump has said he wants to avoid.

The broader critique is that there is no coherent strategy. The escalation has followed a pattern:

Massive military buildup intended to coerce Iran into capitulation — failed.

Decapitation strikes against leadership — tactically successful but didn’t collapse the regime.

Continued bombing in hopes of regime change — still no clear path to victory.

Now discussion of fomenting internal rebellion or limited ground involvement.

The concern is that this resembles a classic escalation ladder—like in the Vietnam War—where each failed step leads to doubling down rather than backing off.

The speaker contrasts this with Trump’s earlier campaign against the Houthi movement, where escalation was eventually abandoned after it became clear victory wasn’t achievable.

They also dismiss France’s involvement—specifically President Emmanuel Macron sending the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle—as militarily insignificant and potentially symbolic rather than decisive.

A major unresolved issue is missile math:

U.S. officials claim they can sustain operations indefinitely.

But defensive interceptor supplies (for the U.S. and Gulf allies) may be limited.

The key unknown: how many ballistic missiles and drones Iran still possesses—and whether current strikes are meaningfully degrading that stockpile.

The core argument:

Supporters of the war cannot clearly explain how this ends in victory. Without a defined endgame, escalation risks repeating historical failures—climbing rung after rung of military pressure in search of a “magic solution” that may not exist.