AMNA NAWAZ: For additional perspective on all the## latest developments, we turn# now to our panel of experts.

Holly Dagres is a senior fellow at the# Washington Institute for Near East Policy.## That's a Washington think tank.

She spent her# teenage years in Tehran and now curates The## Iranist.

That's a weekly Substack newsletter.# Alan Eyre served in the U.S.

government for## four decades.

He was part of the Obama# administration's negotiating team for the## Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, deal# with Iran.

He's now at the Middle East Institute.

And retired Colonel Joel Rayburn served# in the Army for 26 years.

During the## first Trump administration, he was on the# National Security Council staff focusing## on Iran in the Middle East.

He's now a# senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Thank you all for being here.

Holly, I will begin with you because we have seen# in our reporting an .. the administration, President Trump calling# for regime change a couple of days ago,## Secretary of Defense Hegseth now# saying it's not about regime change.## What's your reaction to that and# how is all that resonating in Iran?

HOLLY DAGRES, Senior Fellow, The Washington# Institute for Near East Policy: Well,## the messages, they are conflicting.

And it is a bit disturbing, because the sense# that some Iranians on the ground got was that## they were actually going to see some sort of# change inside the country.

And this was started,## of course, with that unprecedented# massacre in January and President## Trump saying that help is on the# way, take over your institutions.

And it seems that we're hearing from# senior U.S.

officials that they do## want the Iranian people to take control of# their own future, but, at this juncture,## much of the clerical establishment's still# in power, so it's hard to envision that.

And just on the note that President Donald Trump## said that he would very much like to see# a Venezuela model and he's -- granted,## he said three of his top choices were killed# in the past three days, but, in January,## Iranians were really worried about that# prospect because they do not want this regime.

So any kind of deal of that sort with a# different face of the Islamic Republic## would be contrary to what most of the# anti-regime Iranian population stands for.

AMNA NAWAZ: Colonel Rayburn, what do you# make of that, the prospects of someone in## the current regime stepping up to take over?# Is that a potential plan and is it a good one?

COL.

JOEL RAYBURN (RET.

), Former Trump# National Security Council Staff: Well,## whether it's a good one or not I think would# depend on the way th.. couple of weeks goes in terms of whether that# could result -- whether you could actually have## the remnants of the current regime that# actually had the credibility and the capacity## to stabilize the country on terms that would be# acceptable to the United States and our allies.

I think that's a -- that's a serious question.# Militarily speaking, though, the outcome of this## confrontation I think is a foregone conclusion.# So you're going to wind up in any case with## the remnants of a regime there in Tehran that I# think don't have the military wherewithal to do## anything other than capitulate at some point on# the terms that the president is going to offer.

AMNA NAWAZ: Alan, what do you make of# that and also the prospects of people## in Iran rising up?

Do you see that happening?

ALAN EYRE, Middle East Institute: I# think it's a -- possibly.

I wouldn't## characterize it as the remnants of the regime.

The regime is more than just the individuals,# some of whom may live through this,## many of whom will not.

It's institutions.# And I see no indication that currently those## institutions are weak or fraying or that you# can destroy these institutions from the air.

So in terms of regime change, for# that to happen, two things would## have to happen.

The current institutions,# interlocking institutions, like the IRGC,## the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, would# have to be destroyed kinetically from the air,## which I think is improbable, and then you# would have to have a substitute, interlinking,## functional series of institutions to plug in its# place.

And I think that's even more improbable.

So I think the most likely outcome# is, after four weeks or so,## you will have a vastly degraded command# structure in the Islamic Republic,## but the core institutions in one# way or another will still remain.

AMNA NAWAZ: Colonel, the U.S.

president has not## ruled out U.S.

troops on the# ground.

Is that a good idea?

COL.

JOEL RAYBURN (RET.

): Well, I think# President Trump is somebody that likes to## keep his options open.

He likes strategic# ambiguity.

He wouldn't like to rule out,## I think, a military option# this early in a campaign.

But I think the objectives that have been laid# out so far by the president, by Secretary of State## Rubio, and then very clearly today by General# Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs,## those are some very clear military objectives of# finishing the elimination of the Iranian regime's## nuclear program, eliminating its ballistic# missile capability, eliminating the IRGC navy,## the part of the regime that has the mission of# just potentially disrupting the Strait of Hormuz## and the Persian Gulf, and then severing# its ties with its militant proxies.

And as Chairman Caine put# it very interestingly today,## I think it's the first time someone stated# what the mission of the theater command is,## the operational command, U.S.

Central# Command.

He said it was essentially to## prevent the Iranian regime or Iran from having# the ability to project power beyond its borders.

That's a very clear kind of end state if you# -- so it says the military phase of that,## you could have, as Alan wouldn't# say, the remnants of a regime in## Tehran that are still there somehow,# somewhat intact, but have no ability## to damage the region beyond their# borders or international security.

AMNA NAWAZ: Holly, we have heard more from U.S.# officials about justification in the original## U.S.

and Israeli attacks.

Does that line up# for you in terms of what they're saying, that## there was a potential imminent threat, that the# U.S.

is acting both defensively and proactively?

HOLLY DAGRES: I mean, we're getting# a lot of mixed messaging right now.## And it just -- I'm not entirely sure# what exactly led to this, because,## essentially, if we remember, there was a# massacre in January, and it was that reason## that Trump wanted to respond to that.

And he# sent assets into the region for that very reason.

AMNA NAWAZ: You're referencing the# regime cracking down on protesters.

HOLLY DAGRES: Yes, the anti-regime# uprising in January.

And, before that,## we heard in December Israeli Prime# Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during## his meeting with President Donald Trump saying# that ballistic missiles were a very big issue.

So it seems like the goalposts are# moving around frequently about what## the modus operandi of this war# was.

And it seems like it's a## very different from why assets were# moved in January to where it is now.

AMNA NAWAZ: Alan, is it clear to you,# three days in now, and as the president## projects that this is a campaign that could go# on four to five weeks, what the objectives are?

ALAN EYRE: I think this administration# is trying to justify the war the same## way Jackson Pollock used to paint.# You just throw a bucket of reasons## up against the canvas and# hope the result looks good.

It said, for example, there's an imminent threat# to the U.S.

Well, the intelligence community said## that the Iranian nuclear weapons program stopped# in 2003.

President Trump said the underlying## Iranian nuclear energy program was obliterated# June of last year, and it's still under rubble.

OK, missiles.

Iranian missiles are a threat# to the United States.

That falls short of the## truth by about 4,000 miles, OK?So you# then go to the other set of reasons.## This is a preventative war because Iran is# hostile and might one day be a real threat.

Well, if that's the case, if# we're doing preventative wars## now to prevent countries that might one# day be a threat, is North Korea in line,## is China in line, is Russia# in line?

I don't think so.

So, as Holly said, I can't make# head or tails out of the reason## this administration has put forward for this war.

AMNA NAWAZ: Colonel, I will ask you# to respond to what we just heard from## Alan.

Are these other countries# in line if this is the reasoning?

COL.

JOEL RAYBURN (RET.

): Well,# no, look, as I have said before,## we're in a post-October 7 environment here.

The Iranian regime posed a very real,# concrete threat to the region around it,## to Israel and other of our allies by joining that# war on October 8.

And really Hamas used on October## 7 the capability that the Iranian regime equipped# it with over a course of more than 15 years.

So I think October 7, October 8, then the missile# attacks in 2024, 2025 by the Iranians on Israel,## this is the culmination of what was Ali# Khamenei's very aggressive, very hostile## foreign policy in the region and beyond.

They# were -- they continued to intervene in European## security by providing the Russians with the# military means to attack Ukrainian cities.

So this is a regime that was posing a# threat to U.S.

interests, U.S.

allies,## not just in the region, but beyond.

So I don't# think they were just sitting there not doing any## harm and then the Trump administration# decided out of nowhere to attack them.

AMNA NAWAZ: Lots more to cover in the# days and weeks ahead, it looks like.

Alan Eyre, Colonel Joel Rayburn,# Holly Dagres, thank you very much.

COL.

JOEL RAYBURN (RET.

): Thank you, Amna.