Judging Freedom - COL. Douglas Macgregor : Can Iran Neutralize Israel’s Defenses?

Episode Date: October 8, 2025

COL. Douglas Macgregor : Can Iran Neutralize Israel’s Defenses?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

If you're overpaying for wireless, it's time to say yes to saying no. At Mint Mobile, their favorite word is no, no contracts, no monthly bills, no BS. Here's why you should say yes to the switch and getting premium wireless for $15 a month. Ditch overpriced wireless and their jaw-dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages and get the reliable coverage on high-speed performance that you're used to at a significantly lower cost. plans start at $15 a month at Mint. All plans come with high-speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts.

Ready to say yes to saying no, make the switch at mintmobile.com slash freedom. That's mintmobile.com slash freedom. Up front payment of $45 required. that's the equivalent to $15 a month. Limited time, new customer offer for the first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on the unlimited plan, taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. Hi, everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom.

Today is Wednesday, October 8th, 2025. My dear friend, Colonel Douglas McGregor joins us now. Colonel, it's pleasure. You and I spent the weekend together with some wonderful folks, very appreciative of the work that we do in the beautiful city of Dallas, Texas. And it was an enjoyable time, and I thank you for inviting me. I want to talk to you today about the U.S. and Israeli preparation for war against Iran. But before we do that, is Europe preparing for war against Russia? Governor McGregor? I think there are superficial preparations.

The most significant ones, of course, involve the allocation of funds, specifically in Germany, hundreds of millions of euros, ostensibly for the purpose of reinvigorating the defense industry and turning out new weapons and new equipment. But, of course, Judge, that takes a very long time, on average to build a modern force, army. It's usually about 10 years. And Germany's military establishment, particularly its army, is largely in ruins. So you're looking at a 10-year buildup. I don't frankly see that occurring. I think something well short of that will occur. But the man at top, Mr. Bairz, certainly is very bellicose and makes it sound as though Germany wants war. I don't find any

evidence for that with the population at all. What do you think is the true goal of Chancellor Mertz, President McCrown, God only knows how much longer he's going to be in office. They seem to be changing prime ministers every month. And the very unpopular British Prime Minister Starmor, is this bellicosity, and I agree with you, it doesn't seem to be manifested in the populations, is this bellicosity somehow perceived by them as domestically popular or at least domestically extending their ten years in office? Listen, I think the latter statement hits the nail on the head. These people want to stay in

power. This is the senior class of the globalist school of political dominance that was convened years ago by George Soros. These are his products. These people are about as popular is the plague and their populations the electorates want to get rid of them the germans are a little slower but the french are well on the way and mr starmer is on the hit list as well so i i'm not sure that i would be too excited about these promises of massive military buildup aimed at russia i think it's all designed to strengthen and reinforce their authoritarian rule over the the peoples of Western Europe. This week, Brussels is talking about confiscating 165 billion in Russian state assets of Brussels banks

and somehow using it as collateral for a loan to Ukraine, a loan that, of course, will never be repaid. Will the Kremlin view this as an act of war, a theft of that magnitude? Well, if the Kremlin were to view various things as evidence for an active war, they could have gone to war with us a long time ago. I think that President Putin from the very beginning has made the determination that what he wants to avoid at all cost is a war with the United States and NATO. I think the United States is currently led by someone whose speech is reckless and often not carefully considered. before he opens his mouth but given some time he has a habit of backing off from from dumb statements i think in europe the statements are equally stupid and reckless but they can't get away from it so if you're president putin and you understand what's been going on your tendency at this point

is to hold fire because your assumption is that things will change i think that's true i think in Western Europe in particular things are going to change. And they're not going to change in ways that are going to benefit the globalist cause. And with President Trump, you know, you get on the phone, you call him, you talk to him, and then you get a very different impression from the one that he made publicly. And we've just had this happen with the Tomahawks. He went from, oh, yes, I'm going to give the Ukrainians Tomahawks. Then somebody sat him down and said, look, this is a weapon system with a 1,500-mile range.

we don't have any control over where these missiles will be shot, where they will land, how much damage they'll do, but we know based upon what we've seen of the Ukrainians, that they'll use them against civil populations and anything that produces anything of value for the people in the country. So I think that President Trump has now backed down, backed and said, look, we want to be, we know where these tomahawks are going to go, and we're not sure we're going to let them do whatever they want and so forth. In Western Europe, it's very different. I'm very concerned about the Germans releasing these tourist missiles to the Ukrainians, because that could be the proverbial

Rubicon and result in our Reschniks landing in various places in Germany. The German population doesn't want that, but this man in charge is determined to do whatever he can to stay in power. Before we leave this topic, I think this woman is a lunatic, but here's the Earth's a Van der Leyen earlier today talking about so-called Russian threats to the EU. Chris number 13. One incident may be a mistake. Two incidents and coincidence. But three, five, ten.

This is a deliberate and targeted grey zone campaign against Europe. And Europe must respond. Russia wants to sow division. It was Italian pilots and the NATO's air policing mission that escorted Russian jets from Estonian skies. Ukrainian experts are sharing frontline expertise to help member states counter drone incursions. But we must not only react, we must deter. Now the work has already begun. We are seeing the biggest surge of defense spending in the history of the Union.

Now we need a precise pan-European plan, coordinated very closely with NATO, on how to move forward. Tackling Russia's hybrid war is not only about traditional defense. It is about software for drones. It is about spare parts for pipelines. It is about rapid cyber response teams. And it is about public information campaigns to spread awareness. We either can shy away and watch Russian threats escalate, or we meet them with unity, deterrence, and resolve. This lady wants to be the commander-in-chief of a European military.

Well, that's not likely to happen. The so-called drone incursions over Poland, when we picked up the pieces of the drones that were guided into Poland, and we discovered that most of them contained Polish and Swedish SIM cards. So unless the Russians are now purchasing that kind of computer guidance system from Sweden and Poland, which is clearly not the case, this was not a deliberate act by the Russians. And NATO quickly responded and said this is not considered a threat to NATO or an incursion into NATO space. again all of these alleged incidents when you line them up and you look at them very carefully they don't measure up to what she's trying to create which is the illusion of a Russian

interest in conflict with NATO there's no interest at all and that's why now Slovakia Hungary the Czech Republic have leaders that have said forget it we have no intention or any interest in going to war with Russia and even the Polish president who has tried to be at least in rhetorical terms allied with NATO, as stated, no Polish soldiers under any circumstances will cross into Ukraine and fight, pointed out that they've already lost 10,000 men fighting for Ukraine inside Ukraine. All of this is a lot of bluster and nonsense. And I don't think we should pay too much attention to it. And I think ultimately Vanderlion and the rest of these people will be removed. If the Russians learn that the Germans are built,

building long-range missiles long enough to reach Moscow, will they destroy those munition plants? I think the Russians understand that preemptive attacks are always a bad idea. Bismarck said preemptive strikes or preemptive war is essentially the same as committing suicide out of fear of death. So I think the answer is no. I think on the other hand, if tourist missiles, which currently exist, are delivered to the Ukrainians and the Ukrainians are allowed to target whatever they like, which is very dangerous because, again, we'll see those tourist missiles land in Moscow. We'll see those tourist missiles land in St. Petersburg, any number of different places, with the objective of killing Russians and destroying Russian civilian infrastructure. If that occurs, the Russians will respond. They will use Orrashnik missiles and other hypersonic missiles to destroy. German infrastructure, not civilian, but military.

Colonel, moving over to Gaza and the Trump, Netanyahu, Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Tony Blair's so-called peace proposal. Do you think that Benjamin Netanyahu has any intention whatsoever of removing IDF troops from Gaza? Frankly, no. Whatever he does, it will be at, at best a gesture. And that's why I sent you something that Chris Hedges read on his program, which was a leaflet from the IDF. And it made it very clear that the people in Gaza and eventually I think on the West Bank have a choice. They can either flee or be killed. This is the campaign of mass murder and expulsion. That's not going to change. And in fact, we've seen strikes go

into Lebanon and other places since Mr. Netanyahu spoke with President Trump on the phone. I don't think President Trump has any real influence over Mr. Netanyahu. So the short answer is I don't expect anything of real substance or value to come out of these talks. Well, why should the, why should Hamas even negotiate with the Israelis? This is the very same negotiating team the Israelis tried to murder in Doha. I think the view in Hamas and probably in much of the Middle East is whether you like it or not, you have to give it a shot. You've got to try. You've got to talk and see if anything good can come of it.

And I think their expectations are very low. And I'm sure they're all watching the skies overhead and they're very concerned about their own lives. But if they refuse to talk, they refuse to meet with the Israelis, then they will be accused of wanting this war to continue into perpetuity. So I think that's what it boils down to. You know, right now there are lots of people who want desperately to end this. I mean, the Egyptians are a good example. They're talking about bringing additional U.S. forces into the Sinai. They're hoping that we'll get between the Israelis and them.

They're worried about what's happening not only in Gaza, but in Lebanon, in Syria. This whole thing is explosive. It's a giant tinderbox. No one knows what will actually bring it off. and then we have Iran looming on the horizon as the next major target for Mr. Netanyahu. Before I ask you about U.S. military preparation for a war in Iran and maybe a war in Venezuela,

I want to ask you about President Trump. You mentioned earlier that he says things differently in public than he says in private. Well, we all know that. He has publicly told Prime Minister Netanyahu I'm not going to let you annex the West Bank, even though they have de facto annexed it already. Andy has publicly said,

now that we have an agreement in principle, stop the bombing. But Netanyahu is thumbed his nose at both of those public statements. Is it likely he has contradicted himself in private to Netanyahu? Or is it likely Netanyahu knows who's the boss between the two of them? We have to consider the possibility that what he says in private, it is different unfortunately and i think he does know who's boss and the boss is netting yahoo

at least insofar as the events in the middle east are concerned president trump is not in control mr netting yahoo is in control and i don't see any evidence that that's going to change in the short run so i think that privately it's eminently possible he says look i've got a lot of people who are extremely upset about what's going on and our support for what you're doing doing, I have to make these statements in public. He may well have said that. And Netanyahu may have nodded. We understand completely, and he's going to continue doing what he's doing regardless.

That's a possibility. But right now, Mr. Netanyahu is in charge. Let's face it, those are the facts. Colonel, what military preparations is the United States making of which you are aware for an invasion or to support the Israeli? invasion. I'm sure there's a difference and you can tell us of Iran. Well, I don't think the Israelis are planning on invading Iran. That's very unlikely. Well, they preposition what we would call special operators and intelligence agents in Iran. I'm sure they already have, although it's probably

more difficult now than it was before. But it's still, unfortunately, surprisingly easy to buy people. And even though you execute them as traitors later on, that still is appealing to too many people. And I think that's happened in Iran and other countries in the Muslim world. Now, having said that, we are moving ammunition. We are moving weapon systems into the region, into the eastern Mediterranean, into the Red Sea. And probably I don't know much about the Indian Ocean. I can't comment on that. But we know those things have happened.

We know that we have at least two batteries of theater high altitude air defense missiles on the ground. We know that that inventory of missiles has been built up since the last round for 12 days. So I think there's a lot of evidence, yes, that in terms of people, forces, and ammunition, we're getting ready to do something in support of Israel. I don't think we're prepared to directly strike immediately, but we have to accept the high probability if things don't go well for Israel, that we will participate. And that, of course, opens Pandora's box for all sorts of other things to come out,

including the Russians, the Chinese, the Pakistanis, and so forth. If this is another war like the 12-day-1 in June, which is aimed at decapitation and destruction, of nuclear weaponry. I mean, that will be the stated purpose. As a practical matter, we all know that Prime Minister Netanyahu knows that the Iranians don't have deliverable nuclear weapons, and his goal is to turn Iran into another Syria. Okay, my question is a little too long.

What? Can the Israelis defeat Iran missiles? Stated differently. Can Iran neutralize Israeli defenses? I think we have to assume based on what we saw the last time, that the Iranians can employ their entire arsenal, which they did not do in the past. That arsenal is quite capable of penetrating Israel's air and missile defense defenses, and I think it can also defeat much of what we have, not completely, but substantial penetration, which means $50 billion of damage the last time, perhaps $80 to $1,000. hundred billion dollars worth of damage or more this time what the real question is if if we're right about that and we think that the jirin integrated air defenses are now much better than they

were the last time they may not be a hundred percent of what the iranians would like but they're probably 60 to 70 percent of what the iranians would like you add that to this enormous strike arsenal how long before the Israelis finally conclude that they cannot achieve what you just outlined i think they're still dedicated and devoted frankly to this notion that they can decapitate the iranian regime the iranians have already said it fine do your do your worst because we have redundancy in other words we have people lined up to take over in the event that some of our leaders or many of our leaders are killed what then do you do as an israeli when you realize everything you've tried has failed do you turn to the use of a nuclear

weapon. That's always been my greatest concern with the Israelis because they can deliver those. They can deliver them from the sea, from their dolphin-class submarines who were built for them by the Germans. And they don't have to necessarily fly it in. They also have missiles, but they'd have to move those much closer, obviously, to deliver them. Bottom line is, we don't know. And thus far, we've seen a lot of evidence that Mr. Netanyahu is going to do whatever the hell Mr. Netanyahu wants to do, Judge. Our friend and colleague Max Blumenthal made some extended and very telling statements about this

last night. We'll run a portion of them. I would like to know if you agree with this analysis. Chris, cut number 17. They'll never enjoy security, and they'll constantly be at war. And then finally, and this is one of the other lessons of October 7th, because Israel has been, I don't think any of us expected Israel to still be pushing ahead with this genocidal rampage in Gaza two years after. Israel cannot be at peace for political reasons, not just Netanyahu, but just Israel, because it will lose its value to the U.S. as an attack dog in the region. It will lose its value as a strategic asset to U.S. empire if it's at peace.

It's like, oh, no, we don't actually want to take out Iran. We don't actually want to, you know, we're not going to fight Hezbollah. We have a Houdna. We're not going to sell you. We're not actually going to keep selling weapons. Actually, our military industry is going to be reduced. Well, then we'll reduce aid to you, and you don't really matter anymore. And you're just going to shrink away into the region.

So Israel, for the rest of our lives, will be engaged in this kind of war as it expands its secret nuclear facility at Dimona outside the purview of the IAEA, as it has been doing for the last two months in very aggressive fashion as it ramps up the Sampson option. I was from the provoked podcast by our friends, Scott Horton, who was with us Saturday night in Dallas and his colleague Darrell Cooper, friends of both of ours. Will the Israelis use nuclear weapons on Iran? I can't rule it out. I'm not going to sit here and say with absolute certainty

that they will turn to a nuclear weapon to achieve their aims. But remember, this also assumes that Iran has an impact. Iran can have a devastating impact on Israel. And if the Israelis conclude that they can't protect themselves from that, they may well turn to the use of a nuclear weapon. Now, I think what he said about Demona is absolutely correct, and I'm sure Scott Horton would agree. I would back away from some of the assumptions about the utility of Israel as the attack dog to us. I think that's overstated.

Having said that, the other piece of this, and this is something you will appreciate, Judge, is that I do think that they are engaged in an eternal war for perfect security. Now, people say, well, that's ridiculous. If we go back and look at Napoleon Bonaparte and his invasion of Russia, it was essentially a search for perfect security. Bonaparte did not think he would be safe on the throne of France until he had vanquished all of his potential enemies. This is, by the way, something we can watch in any number of films about the Italian mafia.

This obsession with security means you've got to destroy everyone and you trust no one around you. I think that particular mentality is very strong with the Israelis. And they think it's their God-given right in view of the Holocaust to essentially kill it will and destroy anybody anywhere at any time that they think is a potential threat to Israel. And that means permanent war. I think that's much stronger, frankly, in their thinking, than the bit about being an attack dog for us. I've asked you this before.

I know the answer, but I have to ask again. And I'll ask about both countries. Do Venezuela or Iran propose the slightest threat to the national security of the United States? No, absolutely not. But there are people that think very strangely. Someone sent me a note recently and said, look what the Venezuelans did to Lake and Ryle. Now, I'm sure most of your audience remembers the horrible death and the injury inflicted on that girl. And this was by a criminal that had been allowed into our country by President Biden and Mr. Mayorkas from Venezuela.

And I said to this person, if you're angry at what has happened because this person came from Venezuela, you need to direct your anger at Mr. Biden and Mr. Mayorkas, not at Venezuela. well they deliberately released people from prisons they probably did there's no doubt in my mind but what that probably did happen but declaring war on the people of venezuela bombing them into submission destroying that country is in my judgment unjustified that's that's not going to win anything for us in fact it's going to probably be a catalyst for a larger latin american crusade against the united states i mean we aren't very popular in Latin America, as you know, Judge, anyway.

We have a troubled history with the people down there. This is going to make matters infinitely worse. And now President Trump has severed diplomatic relations, which looks like the precursor to armed action. So in that sense, no, there's no danger, direct danger from Venezuela, and no danger, frankly, Judge, that we could not protect ourselves against if we guard our borders and coastal waters and pay attention to who's in some our country and deal with that problem.

You know, Tulsi Gabbard has spoken to the American public and said, we have serious dangers inside the United States as a result of millions of people coming in here with agendas that we know, we don't know much about them, but we know we have Islamists who've come in, various terrorists, and large numbers of criminals. Well, she's right. That's where we should focus not on bombing another country, least of all Iran, which has certainly over the last 30 years, I would argue. Well, certainly since 2001, tried very hard to find a way to repair its relations with us.

Right. And we shouldn't be blowing up speedboats that are 1,500 miles from our shore. Colonel, I have to run, but thank you very much. A great conversation, as always. All the best, my dear friend, I look forward to seeing you next week. Okay, thank you, Judge. Thank you. And coming up later today, at 1 o'clock, Aaron Matte, at 2 o'clock, Professor Glenn Deeson, And at 3 o'clock, Phil Giraldi, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.