** NEW MERCH ** Jackets & Sweatshirts, Thermo Mugs!! Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store https://www.etsy.com/shop/DanielDavisDeepDive?ref=seller-platform-mcnav Danny argues that the United States should not attack Iran because doing so would likely result in a strategic defeat, despite overwhelming U.S. military firepower. Military strength alone does not determine success in war; what matters is the strategic outcome. Citing examples like the U.S. experience in Afghanistan and the Russia–Ukraine war, he claims that fundamentals and historical patterns often outweigh raw power. He contends that Iran holds the strategic advantage if the U.S. initiates war, primarily because Iran views capitulating to U.S. demands as a greater threat to regime survival than fighting. He outlines a series of past incidents—including the 2020 U.S. killing of Qasem Soleimani, Israeli strikes on Iranian targets, and attacks on Iranian-linked figures—arguing that Iran has consistently responded in restrained, calculated ways to avoid escalation. However, he suggests Iran may now be less willing to show restraint. The speaker also references the collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated under Barack Obama and later withdrawn by Donald Trump, arguing that from Iran’s perspective, negotiations have repeatedly led to vulnerability rather than stability. He concludes that while the U.S. can choose to avoid loss by maintaining its current defensive posture, initiating war would likely lead to significant personnel, financial, and long-term strategic costs. In his view, hubris and misreading history could lead the U.S. into a costly and avoidable conflict.