Source: Daniel Davis youtube
Showing posts with label Lt Col Daniel Davis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lt Col Daniel Davis. Show all posts
Jeremy Scahill & Lt Col Daniel Davis | IRAN COLLAPSE PSYOP | May 3, 2026
Labels
China,
Iran,
Israel,
Jeremy Scahill,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump
/
Lt. Col. Daniel Davis & Col. Doug Macgregor | IRAN WAR TAG TEAM | Apr. 29, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Iran,
Israel,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump
/
Alastair Crooke & Lt Col Daniel Davis | Strait of Hormuz Control | Apr. 24, 2026
Labels
Alastair Crooke,
China,
Iran,
Israel,
Lebanon,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump
/
Larry Johnson & Lt Col Daniel | Iran War End: Best Case Scenario | Apr. 22, 2026
Labels
China,
Iran,
Israel,
Larry C. Johnson,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump
/
Col. Douglas Macgregor | IRAN WILL SURVIVE NO MATTER WHAT | Apr. 21, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Iran,
Israel,
Lebanon,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Pakistan,
Russia,
Trump
/
Prof. Seyed M. Marandi & Lt Col Daniel Davis | Back on the Warpath in Iran | Apr. 19, 2026
Labels
Iran,
Israel,
Lebanon,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Prof. Mohammad Marandi,
Trump
/
Col. Douglas Magregor | WE CAN'T CONTROL THE PERSIAN GULF | Apr. 14, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Iran,
Israel,
Lebanon,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Pakistan,
Russia,
Trump
/
Prof. John Mearsheimer | The HORRIBLE NAVAL BLOCKADE in Hormuz Strait | Apr. 13, 2026
Labels
Iran,
Israel,
John Mearsheimer,
Lebanon,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Trump,
Yemen
/
Pepe Escobar & Lt Col Daniel Davis | Iran's Nuclear Dust | Apr. 8, 2026
Labels
China,
Iran,
Israel,
Lebanon,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Pepe Escobar,
Russia,
Trump
/
Col. Douglas Macgregor | Iran's Deadline Looms | Apr. 7, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Irak,
Iran,
Israel,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump,
Yemen
/
Prof. Marandi & Lt. Col. Daniel Davis | IRAN: Just a Bunch of Crazy Bastards? | Apr. 6, 2025
Labels
China,
Irak,
Iran,
Israel,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Prof. Mohammad Marandi,
Russia,
Trump,
Yemen
/
Col. Douglas Macgregor | IRAN WAR - The Myth of Air Power | Mar. 31, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Irak,
Iran,
Israel,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump,
Yemen
/
Col. Douglas Macgregor & Lt Col Daniel Davis | EPIC IRAN WAR TAG TEAM | Redacted | Mar. 26, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Iran,
Israel,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump
/
Joe Kent | The Truth of the Iran War | Mar. 26, 2026
Labels
Iran,
Israel,
Joe Kent,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Trump
/
Larry C. Johnson | US MILITARY IMPRACTICAL OBJECTIVES in IRAN | Mar. 25, 2026
Labels
China,
Iran,
Israel,
Larry C. Johnson,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump
/
Scott Ritter | TRUMP is DEAD WRONG About U.S. Missiles & Stockpiles | Mar. 16, 2026
Labels
China,
Iran,
Israel,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Scott Ritter,
Trump
/
Alastair Crooke & Lt Col Daniel Davis | Iran's Asymmetrical War | Mar. 14, 2026
Labels
Alastair Crooke,
China,
Iran,
Israel,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump
/
Source: Daniel Davis youtube
Description:
Iran’s naval strategy is based on asymmetric warfare, not a traditional Western-style navy. Instead of large warships, Iran relies on coastal missiles, submersible drones, fast attack boats, and 25–35 mini-submarines capable of launching anti-ship missiles. These systems make the Strait of Hormuz difficult to defend and allow Iran to threaten oil tankers and military vessels. Even occasional successful attacks could frighten commercial shipping and effectively shut the strait.
Because the strait is only about 21 km wide near Iran, Iranian artillery, missiles, and naval drones could control the passage. Protecting tankers would require large convoy operations and possibly ground forces securing vast coastal territory, something analysts say would be extremely difficult.
The discussion argues that Iran’s strategy focuses on long-term disruption and logistics, while the U.S. and its allies expected a short war. Rising oil prices show the economic pressure building. Iran may also expand the conflict through allies such as the Houthis, potentially threatening alternative oil routes in the Red Sea.
Overall, the argument is that Iran planned for a prolonged asymmetric conflict, aiming to strain Western logistics, global energy markets, and political pressure rather than win through conventional military battles.
Description:
Iran’s naval strategy is based on asymmetric warfare, not a traditional Western-style navy. Instead of large warships, Iran relies on coastal missiles, submersible drones, fast attack boats, and 25–35 mini-submarines capable of launching anti-ship missiles. These systems make the Strait of Hormuz difficult to defend and allow Iran to threaten oil tankers and military vessels. Even occasional successful attacks could frighten commercial shipping and effectively shut the strait.
Because the strait is only about 21 km wide near Iran, Iranian artillery, missiles, and naval drones could control the passage. Protecting tankers would require large convoy operations and possibly ground forces securing vast coastal territory, something analysts say would be extremely difficult.
The discussion argues that Iran’s strategy focuses on long-term disruption and logistics, while the U.S. and its allies expected a short war. Rising oil prices show the economic pressure building. Iran may also expand the conflict through allies such as the Houthis, potentially threatening alternative oil routes in the Red Sea.
Overall, the argument is that Iran planned for a prolonged asymmetric conflict, aiming to strain Western logistics, global energy markets, and political pressure rather than win through conventional military battles.
Larry C. Johnson | U.S. at WAR with IRAN, IRANIAN LEADER DEAD! | Feb. 28, 2026
Labels
China,
Iran,
Israel,
Larry C. Johnson,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump
/
Col. Douglas Macgregor | GET READY, Iran Will Not Fall Like a House of Cards | Feb. 25, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Iran,
Israel,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump,
Ukraine
/
Col. Douglas Macgregor | BOMBING IRAN Won't Fix Anything | Feb. 17, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Iran,
Israel,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump,
Ukraine
/
Source: Daniel Davis youtube
Description:
U.S. military leaders are confident in their capabilities against Iran, but any war would likely involve American losses in the air, on the ground, and possibly at sea.
Senator Lindsey Graham is portrayed as accepting those risks, arguing military action is justified despite potential U.S. casualties. The speaker strongly disagrees, arguing there is no compelling U.S. national security reason to attack Iran and that such a war would provoke Iranian retaliation and American deaths.
Col Douglas Macgregor claims some policymakers and commentators view U.S. and Israeli interests as identical, but argues the U.S. has no strategic interest in destroying Iran or its society.
He rejects the idea that Iranians would welcome U.S. military intervention, arguing bombing Iran would not help its population or lead to regime change.
The speaker disputes claims that Iran poses a global threat or is actively pursuing nuclear weapons, arguing Iran’s actions are primarily defensive or regional rather than aimed at world domination.
He criticizes Western media and neoconservative voices, including Mark Thiessen, for promoting war and framing negotiations as requiring Iran’s surrender.
He argues negotiations are unlikely to succeed because U.S. demands—such as ending enrichment, missile programs, and regional influence—are unacceptable to Iran.
He concludes that U.S. policy toward Iran is heavily influenced by Israeli strategic priorities and broader geopolitical and financial power struggles, making compromise unlikely and increasing the risk of conflict.
Overall: The speaker argues that war with Iran would be costly, unnecessary for U.S. security, unlikely to achieve its goals, and driven more by ideology and alliances than by clear American interests.
Description:
U.S. military leaders are confident in their capabilities against Iran, but any war would likely involve American losses in the air, on the ground, and possibly at sea.
Senator Lindsey Graham is portrayed as accepting those risks, arguing military action is justified despite potential U.S. casualties. The speaker strongly disagrees, arguing there is no compelling U.S. national security reason to attack Iran and that such a war would provoke Iranian retaliation and American deaths.
Col Douglas Macgregor claims some policymakers and commentators view U.S. and Israeli interests as identical, but argues the U.S. has no strategic interest in destroying Iran or its society.
He rejects the idea that Iranians would welcome U.S. military intervention, arguing bombing Iran would not help its population or lead to regime change.
The speaker disputes claims that Iran poses a global threat or is actively pursuing nuclear weapons, arguing Iran’s actions are primarily defensive or regional rather than aimed at world domination.
He criticizes Western media and neoconservative voices, including Mark Thiessen, for promoting war and framing negotiations as requiring Iran’s surrender.
He argues negotiations are unlikely to succeed because U.S. demands—such as ending enrichment, missile programs, and regional influence—are unacceptable to Iran.
He concludes that U.S. policy toward Iran is heavily influenced by Israeli strategic priorities and broader geopolitical and financial power struggles, making compromise unlikely and increasing the risk of conflict.
Overall: The speaker argues that war with Iran would be costly, unnecessary for U.S. security, unlikely to achieve its goals, and driven more by ideology and alliances than by clear American interests.
