War w/Iran Would NOT be Short /Alastair Crooke & Lt Col Daniel Davis

The discussion argues that a war with Iran would be long, destructive, and fundamentally different from limited U.S. actions elsewhere (like Venezuela). While U.S. leaders publicly suggest a show of force might avoid conflict, the guest—Alastair Crooke, a former British diplomat and MI6 officer—contends this is dangerously misleading.

Key points:

Iran is not Venezuela: Unlike a quick “snatch and grab” operation, Iran is vast, mountainous, heavily populated, and deeply militarized.

U.S. naval power is constrained: Iran’s coastline is saturated with anti-ship missiles, submarines, and fast attack boats, forcing U.S. carriers to operate far from effective range and under constant threat.

Missile limits: Even hundreds of Tomahawk missiles would not cripple Iran as a state; they are relatively slow, limited in penetration, and insufficient for a country Iran’s size.

Air defenses remain intact: Previous Israeli/U.S. successes relied on one-time ground sabotage by infiltrated cells—methods Iran has since neutralized.

Past clashes were negotiated, not deterrence: The June attacks were prearranged and calibrated to avoid escalation, including Iran removing uranium in advance and both sides limiting damage.

Future conflict would escalate fully: According to Crooke, Iran has made clear that any new attack by the U.S. or Israel would trigger all-out war, not a symbolic response.

Western assumptions are dangerous: Claims that Iran would not retaliate for fear of regime collapse are dismissed as unrealistic; Iran has already demonstrated it can penetrate defenses and strike meaningful targets.