Daniel Davis Deep Dive

Latest Episodes:

We Bombed Iran But We're Still in Trouble /Lt Col Daniel Davis Jul 01, 2025

Show notes

The U.S. and Israel have recently bombed Iran, targeting nuclear sites, and a ceasefire is now in place. However, there is growing concern that neither side—especially the U.S.—had a clear post-strike objective or strategy. The speaker criticizes the apparent lack of planning or foresight from U.S. leadership, particularly President Trump and his military advisors, suggesting that the strikes were carried out with a "hit now, think later" approach.

Key points:

No Clear Strategy: Military force was used without a well-defined end goal. The speaker emphasizes the importance of asking "and then what?" before initiating conflict, a question that seems to have been ignored.

Unclear Objectives: When asked about the goal, Trump gave vague responses, suggesting uncertainty even after the bombing had occurred. This indicates a lack of planning regarding Iran’s uranium stockpiles, enrichment capabilities, or IAEA inspections.

Destroyed but Unverified: Though Trump claims Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been “obliterated,” experts and inspectors suggest damage is uncertain. Underground facilities, particularly at Fordow, may still be intact—no one really knows without physical inspection.

JCPOA Withdrawal Criticism: The speaker argues that the nuclear deal (JCPOA) was already effectively limiting Iran’s nuclear capability, and pulling out of it in 2018 was a strategic error. Now the U.S. is trying to enforce outcomes that were already achieved under that deal.

False Premise: Iran didn’t have an active nuclear weapons program, according to both U.S. and international intelligence. The attacks, then, were based more on political narrative than verified threat.

Strategic Confusion: Trump claims the strikes have set Iran’s program back by years, but IAEA officials suggest it could recover in months. The true impact remains unclear, as there’s no verified damage assessment yet.

Conclusion:

The central critique is that the military strikes lacked strategic clarity and may have been counterproductive, especially since the diplomatic tools that once constrained Iran’s nuclear ambitions were abandoned by the same leadership now attempting to bomb their way back to control.Transcript

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Larry Johnson & Scott Horton: Risks Trump is Taking with IRAN Jun 25, 2025

Show notes

The discussion centers on the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), U.S. foreign policy, and global nuclear deterrence dynamics.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT):
Nuclear states promised not to spread nuclear weapons and to eventually disarm (which is not taken seriously), while non-nuclear states agreed not to develop nukes and to stay under IAEA safeguards. However, violations and selective enforcement erode trust in the system.
Iran’s Position:
Iran remained in the deal even after U.S. withdrawal in 2018 under Trump (influenced by Netanyahu). In response to U.S. sanctions and Israeli sabotage (e.g., assassinations of nuclear scientists, attacks on facilities), Iran increased uranium enrichment (up to 60%)—not to build a bomb, but as a bargaining chip to pressure the U.S. back into negotiations.
Assassinations & IAEA:
The IAEA’s access gave outside intelligence agencies (allegedly including NSA and Mossad) detailed knowledge of Iran’s nuclear personnel, possibly enabling targeted killings.
Lessons for Other Countries:
Historical examples (Iraq, Libya, North Korea) suggest that nations cooperating with the West on disarmament are still vulnerable, while those with nuclear weapons (like North Korea) are left alone. Thus, the strategic takeaway for states is: build nukes if you want deterrence.
Potential Iranian Shift:
There's speculation that Iran may revoke its religious ban (fatwa) on nuclear weapons and pursue a bomb openly, due to repeated betrayals and attacks.
Trump’s Leverage:
Trump’s military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities may give him a strong hand in future negotiations. Iran might consider returning to talks if offered significant concessions (economic relief, normalization), though it’s more likely they’ll continue enrichment unless the U.S. opts for full regime change—something Trump likely wants to avoid.
Russia’s Role:
Russia offered Iran a defense pact (similar to one offered to North Korea), but Iran declined, fearing it would permanently sever potential future ties with the West. Some factions in Iran still hope to maintain a balancing act between East and West.

Key Takeaway:

Iran’s restrained behavior amid aggression from the U.S. and Israel is eroding. If Western powers continue to undermine agreements and attack Iran’s infrastructure, Iran may abandon diplomacy and pursue nuclear weapons outright as its only effective deterrent.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

U.S. Striking Iran Pentagon Briefing /Def Sec Pete Hegseth & Chairman of the JCS Gen. Dan Caine Jun 22, 2025

Show notes

he U.S. military conducted a massive, surprise airstrike operation on Iran, targeting its nuclear infrastructure in three key locations, including Esfahan. The strike, called the "Midnight Hammer", occurred around 2:00 AM local time in Iran and involved:

75 precision-guided weapons

14 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) (30,000 lbs each) — used for the first time operationally

Over 125 U.S. aircraft, including B-2 stealth bombers, 4th & 5th-gen fighters, refueling tankers, cyber units, and a guided missile submarine

Initial assessments suggest severe destruction at all targeted nuclear sites, though a final battle damage assessment is still pending.

Key points:

Iran did not detect or respond to the incoming strike; its air defenses and fighters remained inactive.

The mission is described as one of the largest B-2 operations in U.S. history, second only to post-9/11 missions.

U.S. forces in the region were placed on high alert before the strike, with no prior warning given to Congress or regional bases about the exact timing.

The operation was not intended for regime change but to neutralize nuclear threats to U.S. interests and allies, particularly Israel.

The administration claims Iran was given ample diplomatic chances to halt enrichment, but stonewalled, prompting military action.

Officials stressed that while this was a limited, focused mission, the U.S. is prepared to respond forcefully to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks. Concerns about escalation, alliances with North Korea or China, and fears of another open-ended Middle East war were acknowledged but downplayed, with assurances that this is not a repeat of past conflicts.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

U.S. Strikes 3 of Iran's Nuclear Sites /Lt Col Daniel Davis Jun 22, 2025

Show notes

The speaker is reacting in real-time to news that President Trump has ordered U.S. military airstrikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—using B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles. Trump declared the mission a "spectacular success", claiming Iran's enrichment capabilities had been destroyed and warning of greater future attacks if Iran doesn't pursue peace.

However, the speaker challenges Trump's claim, citing experts like Ted Postol, who doubt such weapons could effectively reach or destroy deeply buried Iranian sites. The true impact is uncertain, and Iran is likely the only party that knows for sure.

More critically, the speaker condemns the action as an unconstitutional act of war:

There was no confirmed nuclear weapons program by Iran per U.S. intelligence and the IAEA.

The 1973 War Powers Act and the U.S. Constitution require Congressional authorization for such military action, which was not obtained.

Justifying the strike by referencing past Iranian involvement in U.S. deaths (e.g., in Iraq 2005) is legally weak and dangerous, as it opens the door for other nations (like Russia) to use similar justifications for attacking the U.S.

The broader point is that this strike represents a dangerous disregard for rule of law, accountability, and democratic process, with many Trump supporters and some officials celebrating the strike without concern for its legality or consequences. The speaker warns that this could set a precedent for unchecked executive war-making and international chaos, undermining both peace efforts and U.S. legal norms.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

DDDD Army - Thank You for 200K Jun 21, 2025

Show notes

DDDD Army - Thank You for 200K

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Is Trump Repeating the 2003 Iraq Playbook in IRAN? /Lt Col Daniel Davis Jun 21, 2025

Show notes

The video reflects on the 2003 Iraq War, calling it one of the greatest disasters in recent U.S. foreign policy. It emphasizes that the war was initiated under false pretenses — namely, the Bush administration's claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which later turned out to be untrue. The war led to the fall of Saddam Hussein but came at enormous human and financial costs: thousands of American troops killed, tens of thousands wounded, trillions of dollars spent, and massive suffering for the Iraqi population.

The discussion then draws a comparison to the current situation with Iran, suggesting troubling similarities. Despite intelligence assessments — including those by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — indicating that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapons program or an order from the Ayatollah to begin one, Trump has repeatedly claimed otherwise. When questioned, he dismissed these intelligence assessments, saying they’re wrong.

The commentary criticizes Trump’s erratic and self-focused approach, noting his repeated shifts between threatening military action and pursuing diplomacy. It also questions the motivation behind potential U.S. involvement in a war with Iran, suggesting that just like in 2003, the true aim may be regime change rather than preventing nuclear proliferation.

Ultimately, the piece warns that if U.S. leadership ignores current intelligence — as it did in 2003 — it risks repeating the same catastrophic mistakes, this time in Iran.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Iran v. Israel: Who's Firepower Can Last Longer? Jun 20, 2025

Show notes

In the early morning, 23 Iranian missiles struck various Israeli targets, continuing a pattern of escalating missile exchanges between the two countries. Both Iran and Israel are hitting each other’s infrastructure, including nuclear sites, IRGC facilities, and energy and scientific institutions.

Despite Western media framing Israel as the dominant power, the analysis suggests that Iran is more resilient than portrayed. Iran can endure heavy strikes, while Israel must achieve specific military goals to claim victory. The conflict is likened to two heavyweights exchanging body blows, with both sides suffering significant damage.

A key point discussed is that air power alone may no longer be sufficient for a decisive outcome. Even U.S. involvement may not guarantee success, due to the sheer volume of Iran’s enriched nuclear material—even a 90% destruction rate could still leave Iran with enough for a nuclear weapon.

This may explain Donald Trump’s sudden shift from threatening unconditional surrender to signaling openness to diplomacy. It’s unclear whether this is a genuine change in strategy or just a pause to build more military force.

Meanwhile, Israeli damage is more severe than publicly acknowledged, with suppression of images and reports inside Israel. Recent Iranian strikes have:

Damaged a major Israeli science institute (June 16 & 20),

Hit a key research facility,

And crippled Israel’s fuel refining capability, creating a serious fuel deficit that could impact both civilian life and military operations.

The speaker warns that Israel is in a more vulnerable position than widely believed, and the narrative of Iranian weakness may be dangerously misleading.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Iran & Trump: The Clock is Ticking w/Patrick Henningsen Jun 20, 2025

Show notes

The segment discusses former President Donald Trump’s fluctuating public deadlines and statements regarding potential U.S. military action against Iran. He has repeatedly shifted timelines—from claiming he’d end conflicts within 24 hours, to vague new two-week “decisions”—creating widespread uncertainty. Analyst Patrick Henningsen argues this delay may be strategic rather than genuine, possibly tied to logistical military preparations and Israel’s need to restock air defense systems like Iron Dome, with U.S. assistance.

Veteran journalist Seymour Hersh reportedly claims an operation is imminent, possibly as soon as the coming weekend. There are indicators—such as repositioning of U.S. personnel and equipment—that suggest preparations are underway. Henningsen warns not to trust Trump’s public statements, recalling previous instances where negotiations served as a smokescreen for attacks.

Israeli PM Netanyahu has openly acknowledged deep U.S. involvement in defense efforts, with U.S. pilots, ships, and missile systems already active in Israel. This suggests the U.S. is already co-belligerent, even if not formally declaring war.

Media narratives claim Iran is exhausted and weak, but Henningsen rebuts this, pointing to how even Yemen managed to resist a U.S.-led air campaign. If Yemen posed challenges, Iran—vastly more powerful—would be a far greater problem. He expresses skepticism about Western media’s pro-Israel slant and warns that Iran likely has tens of thousands, potentially over 100,000 missiles, making a long conflict likely and costly.

In conclusion, the situation is volatile, Trump’s unpredictability is dangerous, and U.S.-Israel coordination suggests escalation may be closer than the public is being told.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Iran Israel War: What if the U.S. Enters In, How Will it Change the Middle East? Lt Col Daniel Davis Jun 19, 2025

Show notes

In a recent discussion, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stated that the U.S. is already heavily involved in aiding Israel during its conflict with Iran—though not offensively, yet. The U.S. is contributing through missile defense systems (like Patriot and Aegis), ships offshore, and even pilots assisting in intercepting Iranian drones and missiles.

Commodore Steve Jeremy, a UK Royal Navy veteran, explained that this support is significant but still defensive. He warned that if the U.S. were to shift to offensive operations, Iran would likely retaliate directly against American forces, escalating the conflict dramatically.

Key takeaways:

U.S. Support: Currently focused on defensive roles—air defenses, ammunition, intelligence, and interceptors—but not conducting offensive strikes.

Potential Escalation: If the U.S. crosses into offensive action, Iran may consider all bets off and retaliate broadly.

Israel’s Vulnerability: Despite having advanced systems like Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and U.S. support, Israeli defenses are porous—missiles still get through.

Iran’s Strategy: Likely using older, less effective missiles to exhaust Israeli and U.S. interceptor stockpiles before deploying more advanced weapons.

Defense Fatigue: The West’s air defense systems, including ship-based Aegis, are limited by the number of interceptors. Sustained barrages could overwhelm them quickly.

Resource War: The confrontation may come down to which side runs out of missile supply first—Israel's interceptors or Iran's offensive weapons.

The situation is precarious, and though the U.S. hasn’t fully entered offensively, its deepening involvement brings the region closer to broader war.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Iran Israel War, Putin is the Wild Card /Lt Col Daniel Davis Jun 19, 2025

Show notes

The video underscores that while the Iran-Israel conflict is currently dominating headlines, it's only part of a larger web of global tensions—including the Russia-Ukraine war and rising U.S.-China competition in the Indo-Pacific. The speaker emphasizes that all of these geopolitical theaters are interconnected, and U.S. actions in one will inevitably impact others.

Key Developments and Arguments:

🔹 Trump’s Delay on Iran Strike

Breaking news from the White House: Trump will wait two more weeks before deciding whether to launch strikes on Iran, citing the "substantial chance of negotiations."

Skepticism remains about whether this delay is genuine diplomacy or strategic misdirection.

🔹 Missed Opportunities for Peace

Trump had a viable diplomatic pathway earlier in the year with Iran through negotiator Steve Witkoff, and Iran was reportedly open to limiting uranium enrichment (under 3.67%).

That potential deal was undermined—likely by Netanyahu and Israeli hardliners—who opposed any deal short of full Iranian regime change.

🔹 Israel’s Real Objective

According to the speaker, Israel does not want negotiations—only the complete dismantling of the Iranian regime. This explains their opposition to the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) and their influence over U.S. policy shifts.

🔹 Legal and Ethical Concerns

Under international law (specifically the NPT, or Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear development. Israel is not a signatory; Iran and the U.S. are.

The U.S. pushing for a zero enrichment policy is a legal overreach and, if enforced by war, would violate both international and constitutional norms.

🔹 Strategic Contradictions

The speaker warns that the U.S. cannot claim to uphold a “rules-based order” while violating it when convenient.

He criticizes past U.S. military interventions (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya) as disasters, arguing that repeating these patterns in Iran would be reckless and based on failed logic.

🔹 Foreign Influence & Escalation Risks

Netanyahu reportedly talks to Trump “almost daily,” strongly influencing U.S. policy.

Meanwhile, Russia and China are actively supporting Iran (e.g., Russia increasing personnel at Iranian nuclear facilities, and China delivering military aid).

These alignments raise the stakes for global war, not just a regional one.

Final Takeaway:

Despite Trump’s public pause for negotiations, the speaker suggests that real diplomacy was already sabotaged. The current path—fueled by Israeli pressure and U.S. maximalism—risks a war that lacks legal justification, global support, or strategic wisdom. Instead, it threatens to repeat a history of costly, destabilizing U.S. military ventures.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected