How Would Regime Change Make Things Different in Iran? /Col Jacques Baud & Lt Col Daniel Davis

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

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

Col Jacques Baud argues that regime change in Iran is a risky gamble with no clear benefit. There’s no guarantee the next leadership would be more moderate—indeed, it could be more aggressive—and figures like the exiled shah’s son lack legitimacy inside Iran. Instead of war or decapitation strikes, the speaker suggests engagement and improved relations as a more effective way to influence Iran’s governance, even if it is flawed. War is portrayed as the “easy button,” while diplomacy is harder but more constructive.

On military escalation, the speaker believes Iran wants to avoid full-scale war with the U.S., but could retaliate against Israel if attacked. The U.S. might support Israel militarily, but is unlikely to commit to a full war on Israel’s behalf. Iran could use calibrated but severe strikes on Israel’s military and economic infrastructure, potentially causing massive disruption and damage.

The speaker emphasizes that a full war with Iran would be extremely difficult for the U.S., requiring boots on the ground in challenging terrain against a motivated, well-armed population—far harder than Iraq. While the U.S. could inflict heavy damage, it likely could not achieve a decisive victory. Meanwhile, Israel’s small size and limited infrastructure make it especially vulnerable, potentially turning it into a strategic pawn in a wider conflict.

Overall, the argument is that deterrence, not escalation, is at play: striking Iran could trigger devastating consequences that the U.S. and Israel cannot fully control or “win,” which is why initiating such a conflict should be avoided.