Game Theory #9: Why Regime Change In IRAN Will Never Happen

Okay, so we know for a fact that no regime in history has ever been changed by air power alone. Every single

successful regime change required ground troops. And in fact, what we know from

troops. And in fact, what we know from military history studies is that technology doesn't really matter. Okay,

so what's the difference? There's a

video from just yesterday and the United States and Israel fire 11 interceptors at this one missile. So, you're spending

11 million to $33 million to try to stop a $100,000 missile and you fail. But if

the United States tries to intercept a,000 missiles, that cost them 11 billion to $33 billion and most of the interceptors will miss anyway. The

second major difference is strategic depth miscalculation. So, the United

depth miscalculation. So, the United States looks at Iran and thinks, "We have sanctions on them for 40 years.

They're struggling economically. This

will be easy." Iran has been preparing for war with the United States for 20 years. Since George Bush called them

years. Since George Bush called them part of the axis of evil, they knew this war was coming. And in their religion, in their esquetology, this is the war

against the great Satan. This is the most important war in their worldview.

And they even had a practice run in June 2024. There was a 12-day conflict. The

2024. There was a 12-day conflict. The

Iranians were able to examine and analyze the strike capacities of both the Israelis and the Americans. They

watched how the United States responded.

They watched what weapons were used. So

when the United States strikes Iran, Iran isn't surprised. Iran expected

this. Iran is not primarily targeting American military bases. I mean, they are, but that's not the main strategy.

The main strategy is to target the critical infrastructure of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries because these countries are the lynchpin of the

American economy. The GCC countries sell

American economy. The GCC countries sell oil, they get paid in dollars, then they recycle those petro dollars back into the American economy. They invest in the

US stock market. They invest in US real estate. And right now, the entire

estate. And right now, the entire American economy is being propped up by one thing, AI investments. And a lot of

that money is coming from the Gulf States. UAE is building massive data

States. UAE is building massive data centers. So if Iran can destroy the GCC

centers. So if Iran can destroy the GCC countries, the petro dollar system collapses because the American economy is basically a financial Ponzi scheme

propped up by cheap money flowing from the Gulf. So how does Iran destroy the

the Gulf. So how does Iran destroy the GCC countries? Two ways actually. First,

GCC countries? Two ways actually. First,

cut off their water. 60% of the GCC's water supply comes from desalination plants. These are factories that turn

plants. These are factories that turn seawater into drinking water. If you

destroy the desalination plant in Riad, that's a city of 10 million people, they'd be out of water in 2 weeks. Now,

there are some ideas that everyone believes but that are actually wrong.

The first one is precision strikes.

Okay, everyone talks about precision strikes. We have precision bombs. We can

strikes. We have precision bombs. We can

surgically remove targets. We don't need ground troops because we have precision strikes. But this is the precision

strikes. But this is the precision strike illusion. Okay. Can you name a

strike illusion. Okay. Can you name a single regime in history that was changed by air power alone? What about

Serbia? But did the regime change? No.

Milosvich stayed in power for another year? He only fell because of internal

year? He only fell because of internal political pressure. Every successful

political pressure. Every successful regime change required ground troops to occupy the capital and physically remove the leadership. But people don't want to

the leadership. But people don't want to believe this because ground invasions are unpopular. They're expensive. They

are unpopular. They're expensive. They

result in American casualties. So we

convince ourselves that precision strikes will work. That technology has changed the game, but it hasn't. The

second concept is technological superiority. In fact, advanced

superiority. In fact, advanced technology becomes a liability because it's expensive and you can't afford to lose it. You become risk averse. You try

lose it. You become risk averse. You try

to minimize casualties. Meanwhile, the

asymmetric side has nothing to lose.

They can take risks. They can sustain losses and eventually they outlast you.

Okay. The third concept is shock and awe. Okay. This is the idea that if you

awe. Okay. This is the idea that if you hit the enemy with overwhelming force right at the beginning, they'll be so shocked that they'll just give up.

Regime collapses, war over. But this is actually shock and stall. It doesn't

work. Okay? Shock and awe only works if the enemy fights on your terms. If they line up their army and you destroy it, yes, they might surrender. But if they

refuse to fight conventionally, shock and awe is just expensive fireworks. You

blow up some buildings. But the regime doesn't collapse. The leadership goes

doesn't collapse. The leadership goes underground. The population becomes more

underground. The population becomes more resolved and you're stuck. Okay. Iraq

2003 is the perfect example. The initial

invasion was shock and awe. The United

States destroyed the Iraqi army in 3 weeks. Saddam statues were pulled down.

weeks. Saddam statues were pulled down.

Everyone declared victory. But then

what? 20 years of fighting. And this is what's happening with Iran. The United

States is trying shock and awe. Massive

air strikes, hundreds of targets, overwhelming force. But Iran was

overwhelming force. But Iran was expecting this. Iran prepared for this.

expecting this. Iran prepared for this.

Iran's critical military assets are distributed and hidden. And Iran's

strategy isn't to fight conventionally.

It's to absorb the shock and then strike back asymmetrically, targeting economic infrastructure, using proxies, bleeding the United States

economically and politically. And the

problem is the United States is trying to play the 20th century game while Iran is playing the 21st century game. And

you cannot win a 21st century asymmetric war using 20th century conventional strategies. It's like the rich versus

strategies. It's like the rich versus poor thing we talked about before. The

rich are playing the multiplication game and the poor are playing the subtraction game. They're different games with

game. They're different games with different rules and if you use the wrong rules, you lose. Okay? Every declining

empire makes this mistake. Why? Because

recent success creates overconfidence.

Let me give you an example. In early

2025, the United States successfully kidnapped President Maduro of Venezuela.

Special forces operation in and out, quick, clean, successful. And this gave Trump an adrenaline rush. He thought,

"Wow, the American military is amazing.

We can do anything." Okay. And this

overconfidence led him to think that Iran would be just as easy. will strike

Iran, the regime will collapse. Mission

accomplished. But this is the same psychological trap that has destroyed empires throughout history. Hitler

conquered most of Europe in 2 years.

France fell in 6 weeks, Poland in one month. This success made Hitler think he

month. This success made Hitler think he was invincible. So he invaded the Soviet

was invincible. So he invaded the Soviet Union and that destroyed the German army. The Soviets bled Germany to death.

army. The Soviets bled Germany to death.

This is really important. Even if the war is bad for America as a country, the war might be good for Trump personally.

And leaders optimize for their personal interest, not national interests. Let me

explain. Okay. Trump is getting massive financial support from Saudi Arabia and Israel. The Saudis invested $2 billion

Israel. The Saudis invested $2 billion in Jared Kushner's private equity fund.

Jared Kushner is Trump's son-in-law. $2

billion. That's a bribe. In exchange for what? In exchange for Trump being

what? In exchange for Trump being aggressive against Iran. The Saudis want regime change in Iran. They see Iran as

an existential threat. So, they're

bribing Trump to attack Iran. Okay. And

Miriam Adlesen, a major Israeli American billionaire, has been financing Trump's political career for years. She recently

said she would put up $250 million if Trump runs for a third term. $250

million. That's another bribe in exchange for what? In exchange for Trump supporting Israeli interests. And Israel

wants regime change in Iran. So they're

bribing Trump, too. Okay. So Trump

personally benefits from this war even if America doesn't. He gets billions in financial support. He gets political

financial support. He gets political backing for a third term. And here's

another benefit. If the war goes badly and Trump is forced to use ground troops, he'll probably need congressional approval. And if there's a

congressional approval. And if there's a major war, he can claim emergency war powers. Emergency war powers allow the

powers. Emergency war powers allow the president to delay elections, to expand executive authority, to suppress opposition. Okay? So if Trump is worried

opposition. Okay? So if Trump is worried about losing the midterm elections, a war helps him. People rally around the flag during war. Opposition becomes

unpatriotic. He can delay elections if there's a national emergency. He can

consolidate power. So even if the war is a disaster for America, it might help Trump personally stay in power. Does

that make sense? And this is a pattern we see throughout history. Leaders start

wars not because the wars are good for the country but because the wars are good for the leader personally. They

consolidate power. They distract from domestic problems. They create enemies to rally against. So you can't understand why wars happen by asking is

this good for the country? You have to ask is this good for the leader? And

often the answer is yes for the leader even when it's no for the country. Okay.

The third factor is the esqueological agenda. Okay. This means religious end

agenda. Okay. This means religious end times beliefs. And this is going to

times beliefs. And this is going to sound crazy, but hear me out. There is

evidence that the world is run by secret societies, groups of very powerful people who have specific religious or ideological beliefs about how history

should unfold. Okay, if you look at the

should unfold. Okay, if you look at the Epstein files, it's clear that there are networks of extremely powerful people who are connected through things that aren't public. We don't know exactly who

aren't public. We don't know exactly who they are or how they're organized, but they exist. And these people control

they exist. And these people control governments, they control militaries, they control intelligence agencies.

Okay? And there are different names for these groups. Uh some people call them

these groups. Uh some people call them the Illuminati. Now, I'm not saying

the Illuminati. Now, I'm not saying there's a single conspiracy. I'm saying

there are multiple groups with overlapping interests and three of the major groups are the Jesuits who have significant influence in the Vatican and

Catholic institutions, the Sabatian Franks who have influence in modern Israel and believe in messianic prophecies and the Freemasons who have

historical influence in American national security apparatus. Okay? And

these groups have esqueatological beliefs. They believe that certain

beliefs. They believe that certain events need to happen for their religious prophecies to come true. And

one of these events is a major war in the Middle East centered on Israel. Some

believe this war is necessary to bring about the Messiah or to create heaven on earth or to fulfill biblical prophecy.

The details vary, but the core idea is the same. This war is part of a script,

the same. This war is part of a script, a religious script. Okay? And if you believe this, then rational costbenefit

analysis doesn't matter. It doesn't

matter if the war is unwinable. It

doesn't matter if it destroys the American economy. It doesn't matter if

American economy. It doesn't matter if millions die because you're following a religious script that you believe is divinely ordained. You're not trying to

divinely ordained. You're not trying to win a conventional war. You're trying to fulfill prophecy. Does that make sense?

fulfill prophecy. Does that make sense?

Now, I can't prove this is happening, but it would explain why American leaders are making decisions that seem completely irrational from a strategic

perspective. why they're ignoring

perspective. why they're ignoring military advisers who say this is a bad idea, why they're proceeding despite obvious evidence that the strategy won't

work. Now, the question becomes, is

work. Now, the question becomes, is there any way regime change could still happen? Are there any escape routes? Any

happen? Are there any escape routes? Any

scenarios where the United States successfully changes the Iranian regime?

And the answer is yes, but all of them are catastrophic. Let me explain. Okay,

are catastrophic. Let me explain. Okay,

the first possibility is ground invasion. Okay, ground invasion. As I

invasion. Okay, ground invasion. As I

said before, no regime has ever been changed by air power alone. You need

boots on the ground. You need to physically occupy the capital, remove the leadership, install a new government. This is how it's always

government. This is how it's always worked throughout history. Germany,

Japan, Iraq, all required ground occupation. Okay? So if the United

occupation. Okay? So if the United States is truly committed to regime change, they will eventually have to

send ground troops. And the pressure for this is building. Why? Because the GCC countries, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, they're being pounded by

Iranian strikes right now. Their oil

facilities are being hit. Their water

plants are threatened. They're facing

economic collapse. Okay? And these

countries are going to demand that the United States protect them. They're

going to say either pay Iran to stop, and we're talking about $5 trillion in indemnity, which the United States can't afford, or send ground troops to

eliminate the Iranian threat once and for all. Binary choice, money or troops.

for all. Binary choice, money or troops.

And the United States can't pay, so it will have to be troops. Okay? Now, I

know there's no political will among the American people for ground troops. 78%

of Americans were against the initial strikes against Iran. The number against ground invasion would be even higher,

probably 90%. But political will doesn't

probably 90%. But political will doesn't matter. Remember, 78% opposed the

matter. Remember, 78% opposed the strikes and they happened anyway.

Leaders don't follow public opinion when it conflicts with their interests. Okay?

So, ground troops are inevitable if the United States stays committed to regime change. But here's the problem. A ground

change. But here's the problem. A ground

invasion of Iran would be catastrophic.

Iran is not Iraq. Iraq is flat desert, easy to invade. Iran is mountains, 85 million people compared to Iraq's 25 million in 2003. And the terrain is

defensible. Urban warfare in Thrron

defensible. Urban warfare in Thrron would be worse than anything we saw in Iraq. Thrron is a city of 9 million

Iraq. Thrron is a city of 9 million people. The casualties would be immense,

people. The casualties would be immense, American and Iranian. Okay? Plus, if the United States invades Iran, Russia and

China will arm the Iranian resistance.

Just like the United States armed the Afghan resistance against the Soviets in the 1980s, they'll provide weapons, intelligence, training. The war would

intelligence, training. The war would drag on for decades, cost tens of trillions of dollars, result in hundreds of thousands of American casualties, and

probably still fail. So, ground invasion is theoretically possible, but practically catastrophic. Does that make

practically catastrophic. Does that make sense? The second possibility is

sense? The second possibility is economic collapse of Iran first. Okay,

economic collapse. The idea is that sanctions and isolation will collapse the Iranian economy before the United States runs out of munitions. The

Iranian people will rise up, overthrow the regime, install a pro-American government. War over. Okay? But this is

government. War over. Okay? But this is unlikely. Why? Because Iran has been

unlikely. Why? Because Iran has been under sanctions for 40 years. They've

adapted. They've built a resistance economy. They have support from Russia

economy. They have support from Russia and China who are providing them with resources and technology. And the

Iranian population, even those who don't like the regime, tend to unify against external threats, nationalism. So

bombing Iran makes the regime more popular, not less. Okay.