Judging Freedom - COL. Douglas Macgregor : The Kremlin Reads Trump Clearly

Episode Date: January 13, 2026

COL. Douglas Macgregor : The Kremlin Reads Trump ClearlySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Undeclared wars are commonplace. Pragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression with no complaints from the American people. Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government? us the government. What if Jefferson was right? What if that government is best, which governs least? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now?

Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, February 13, 2006. Colonel Douglas McGregor joins us now. Colonel McGregor, as always, a pleasure to be with you. I want to ask you about the two subject matters, basically, the Kremlin's read, your view of the Kremlin's read on President Trump in light of the events in Venezuela and the events at President President Putin's House and your views of a runaway presidency. But before that, to the news of the moment, which is what's happening in the streets in Tehran, is it pretty well understood that the Mossad and the CIA are behind all this chaos? No, I don't think it is. I think that the CIA, MI6 and Mossad are all involved.

But unfortunately, I think there is this perception, and it's perhaps a combination of wishful thinking and deliberate fabrication in the American media and in the Western media in general, that the Iranian population is ready to rise up, dispose of this hated regime and establish some sort of democratic regime that will reflect our way of thinking and create peace in the Middle East. Yeah, it's just nonsense. And unfortunately, it passes for serious analysis. And if you challenge people in public and say, what you're seeing is not what you think. And the vast majority of the population is very united behind the government, not because it loves everything the government does, just as our population would unite behind this government if it were under assault, even though it doesn't agree with everything that the government does. But I'm afraid that the real problem, the National Endowment for Democracy, which is one of the NGO arms of regime change, has been hard at work inside Iran. And I think the Chinese and the Russians, to some extent, have been able to help the Iranians deal with it. I mean, we know the Chinese were able to make the 40,000 Starlink terminals that were smuggled into the country for use against the government inoperable.

I think that's the tip of a very large iceberg in terms of. of assistance and defeating this insurgency inside Iran? I mean, does the United States, does Britain, do the Israelis actually think that this scheme worked in 1953 when they overthrew President Mossadegh? It worked in 2014 when they overthrew the president of Ukraine. but do they really think they can overthrow the Ayatollah? Do they really think this is going to produce regime change internally without any force from the outside?

Well, what the CIA thinks, what MI6 thinks, these things are unknown to me. I do know some of the people in the Israeli side, I can tell you, these are very, very hard-nosed analysts. I don't think they harbor any illusions about their ability to topple the government from within. But I do think that there was an attempt to soften things up. In other words, to create a degree of chaos and disorder in the country that in their judgment can reveal other cracks in the edifice, so to say, of Iranian national security.

So I think from their standpoint, they may not have expected an overthrow, but I think they were looking for evidence of where the Iranian national security regime is weak. other cracks in the edifice that could be exploited in the future. Now, as far as CIA and MI6 are concerned, I think there probably are a lot of people who truly believe in their hearts that such a thing as possible. I don't, and I don't know of any serious scholar that understands Iran who reached that same conclusion. They also are very, very suspicious and skeptical

that anything internally can happen the way CIA and MI6 think. Is the United States militarily prepared to assist the Israelis in an invasion of Iran in the very near future? I mean, stated differently, have we begun to ship and accumulate significant amounts of military hardware in the region? Well, you know that our friend Larry Johnson wrote an excellent article detailing the arrival of enormous quantities of material, weapons, equipment. in the Gulf region flown in by U.S. Air Force primarily. But can they operate at this point without reliance on the additional fighter squadrons that would be available in the carrier battle groups? Normally we would expect to see probably two on hand if there were going to be an attack. So I would say part of the answer is no,

but then there's another part of the answer which suggests that a lot of work has been done since June of last year inside Israel, as well as within the region to reprovision stocks with the required numbers of missiles. So I, you know, again, the problem that you run into when you talk to the subject matter experts on this is that they always make the point. Yes, we've replenished many of the missile stocks, but we don't have any depth. In other words, if you're going to fight for more than a week or two, you've got a real problem. And the ships at sea, the aircraft that have to deliver this material,

these things are in limited quantities. So the real issue is not so much can the attack go forward, yes. It's how long can you sustain it before you run out? Because we know that the Iranian stocks are much, much larger. They can fire more missiles and rockets and more drones far longer than we can. And that's a problem. And then, of course, you have the hypersonic speeds.

You know, you're talking about anything from six, five thousand miles per hour all the way up to almost seven or eight thousand miles per hour. That's hypersonic. We can't shoot most of that down. Now, how many hypersonic missiles do they have? Well, they probably have at least a couple of hundred, maybe more. What kinds of payloads do they have? We're not sure.

But how many do you need in order to penetrate the defenses of Israel? I think we found that penetrating those defenses is not extraordinarily difficult. It takes time. It takes large quantities. What about our forces, our bases on the ground in the region? Are they better protected today than they were in June of last year? I don't think so. I think they're still very vulnerable.

Here's the Iranian foreign minister yesterday saying that they've identified CIA and Mossad assets in the crowds. Chris, cut number eight. Israeli media outlets are full of reports claiming they are busy planning operations inside Iran. Mr. Pompeo, an influential figure who served as director of the CIA during Trump's previous time, posted a tweet say, I congratulate the Iranians in the streets and most sad agents walking alongside them, which constitutes a clear admission. We, the Iranian government, demand justice for everyone. who was killed, and we will pursue this both internationally and domestically. Our security forces are fully in control of the situation.

We hope other countries do not make miscalculations. From our perspective, what happened over the past three days, from January 8th to 10th is an extension of the 12-day war. It was planned outside the country in order to bring chaos to Iran. Well, that's their view. And they say they have evidence. It's supposed they're going to start executing people as we speak. Well, I think they are executing some.

And under the circumstances, given the state of siege that they're living in, that's not surprising. They have too many people and too many who have taken money from Mossad, CIA, MI6. They have too many foreign agents on the ground that they can't sort from the population with great ease. So yes, I think there probably are a lot of summary executions. But summary executions are part of warfare. That's not new. That's not unique to Iran. And I think under the circumstances, it will continue to be absolutely certain that they don't end up in a position they were the last time.

Remember, they did not, they were unable, let's put it this way, to put a number of things into operation because they were surprised. And also because there were agents inside the country that were working very, very hard to disrupt military operations. I don't think that's going to happen this time. I think in a strange sort of way, even though there was hope that this would really disrupt Iranian governmental legitimacy and strength, I think it's had the opposite effect. I think when the attack does come, they'll be much better prepared for it now than they ever were in the past.

Switching gears, Colonel, how do you think the Kremlin views President Trump as a person and as the President of the United States. And how do you think they view his real estate agent emissaries in light of two events, the invasion in Venezuela and the attack on President Putin's home? One last thing about the previous segment. I would just point out that during the Second World War from 41 to 45, Stalin's NKVD, so-called secret police,

executed one million Soviet soldiers who simply refused to fight for Stalin and communism. Most people don't understand this. Just to give you a quick appreciation for what happened in the West when it came to Germany inside a German army of over six or seven million, that does include everybody who served, they only had to execute 23,000 soldiers for disobedience to direct verbal orders to fight. So one million on the Soviet side, 23,000 on the German side. I point that out because that's a measure of how much the population inside Russia itself hated Stalin, that they were willing to die rather than fight against the invading German military establishment. Now, your question about Putin, it's not really about Putin. I guess it's generally, we should talk about the perceptions of the Russian

politically elite in the inner circle. No one trusts us at all anymore. Now, why would that be? It's not simply because President Trump has periodically flip-flopped and done 180-degree turn and moved the new directions. That's part of it. I think they also see President Trump as a nice person. They like him.

He's not a figure that people hate or despise, but they're not sure he's completely in charge to be blunt. And that's something that Putin has said in the past. And I think to him it's more obvious now than ever. Now, maybe that's because he wants to continue to be polite to President Trump and give him the benefit of the doubt. But I think when President Trump turned around and said, no, we had no role in the 91 drones that were targeted against Putin's home

and presumably the underground command of control. complex. I think they finally said one of two things. Either this man's absolutely not in control, or he's simply lying. Then you have to go back and look at all the other occasions. Remember, very early on in President Trump's presidency, he sent Secretary Rubio and other members of his cabinet and his foreign policy team to Saudi Arabia to meet with representatives from Moscow. And they conveyed the impression. And indeed, President Trump's comments were all. also in this category conveyed the impression that we really wanted to normalize relations with Moscow, that we wanted to get back to business. And there were extensive discussions about

potential business cooperation, joint projects, joint opportunities. In fact, some of that was mentioned to gain up in Alaska. But it all goes nowhere. It ends up vanishing in a cacophony of hatred and bitterness and anger. And he turns around and doubles down on the sanctions. Even after it's patently obvious that the sanctions on Russia have not had the desired effect. In fact, not only have the Russians gotten around them, they've learned to fight through them,

and they don't matter anymore. But yet he doubles down. In other words, what he says on one day and what he does the next are simply not the same. Well, how would he react, Trump, if the FSB, Russian intelligence, launched 91 drones at Mar-a-Lago while he was in the White House? We can only guess knowing President Trump that he'd probably want to launch a nuclear strike. But, you know, the bottom line is that he doesn't see things that way. You know that.

He sees himself as being on this towering summit of moral superiority and supremacist. and therefore he and his country can do no wrong. What is your view of his mental stability, having said things like, well, we'll listen to it ourselves. Chris cut number two. Do you see any checks on your power on the world stage? Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to? Yeah, there's one thing. My own morality, my own mind.

It's the only thing that can stop. Not international law. I don't need international law. I'm not looking to hurt people. In my view, that's exceedingly dangerous. It's a rejection of the constitutional restraints, treaty restraints, and federal law. Well, of course, you're right, but you and I have discussed this before. Congress has failed routinely to impose any restrictions on any number of different presidents.

He's not unique in that regard. They've let several presidents do things that should never have happened. based on constitutional law. You know, it brings to mind something about presidents in general. It's generally accepted that presidents cannot be arrested. Now, I don't know if that's codified in law anywhere, but I'm told that no one has ever tried to arrest a president. Well, I looked it up, and that turned out to be false.

One president of the United States was, in fact, arrested. And it's interesting because it was Ulysses S. Grant. And Grant and his wife were driving through Washington, D.C. And apparently Grant decided he was an old horseman. He was a very good horseman. And he was bored. And so he said, let's see what this old mayor can do. And he cracked the whip and the horse took off.

And suddenly he found that he had a policeman on horseback that pulled up next to him and said, sir, pull over. You've exceeded the acceptable speed limit. in Washington, D.C. And so he proceeded to take him under arrest for his behavior. Then he realized that this was Grant, the president. He didn't recognize him. But Grant said to him, no, officer, do your duty.

And so he took him to the police station in Washington, D.C., brought him in there. He was arraigned, and the chief of police came out and found out this was the president of the United States, was very upset. And he said, we're dropping the charge. Mr. President. I'm very sorry about this. And Grant said no. He said the officer had an obligation to arrest me. He's done his duty. Now, that may seem strange or quaint today, but Grant was making a point, and his point was very straightforward. He is not above the law. And he understood that also as a professional soldier, because any military policeman on any battlefield, in peacetime, war, any post, is a sentinel on duty.

And under the law, whatever he says to you, regardless of your rank, you must obey. All of those things were in Grant's head, but he made a point. And I think it would be useful for people to remind the president of the United States that he's not simply chief law enforcement officer. He also has the obligation first and foremost

to obey the law himself. He doesn't seem to feel that way. I mean, the statement was horrific and his behavior invading Venezuela, kidnapping the president and his wife, claiming that the United States now has the oil, calling himself. Look at this. Have you seen this nonsense that he posted? I didn't believe he posted it. So it's actually from him. This is not a joke. It is from him. It is not a joke. It is not AI crafted. I don't think it's funny. I think it's a very serious statement from a person who believes that might makes right, Colonel.

Well, even Queen Victoria, when she was informed that there was a move to make her the Empress of India, asked whether or not that was acceptable to the people of India. Now, you know, there was no way to run a poll or have a referendum at the time. in India but they did consult with the leading aristocracy of India and a lot of people don't understand that when the British ruled India they ruled parts of it but not all of it and large parts of India remained under the control of their local aristocrats and when she was satisfied that this would be acceptable she agreed to do it that's a that's a sovereign monarch of a great country great Britain at the time so I don't know what's on his mind obviously he's

decided that something that Ramon Duran, the great international relations theorist, said, great countries, powerful states do what they want. Small states do what they have to. He's decided that Venezuela has to do what it's told. I don't think it's going to work out that way. I think it's going to work out very badly for us and will end up having been an enormous waste of money. But at least we haven't landed troops there and killed anybody unnecessarily, although you can argue we may have killed some people unnecessarily on our way into capture Maduro. That's another matter. But at least we haven't put any conventional forces on the ground.

Will Putin want to negotiate with Trump, or does he now view Alaska as a joke or a setup? I think that President Putin will continue to be polite. He will speak to President Trump. He will take his phone calls. But I don't think he's going to pay a great deal of attention to anything that to President Trump says. Not that he doesn't like him again, I think he does. It's just that he's learned that what President Trump says and what he ultimately decides to do are not the same thing. One of the things I've wondered about is, is there a way to get around this abysmal failure in Ukraine?

Because the people that we sent over there, Mr. Widkoff and Kushner, have failed. Their attempts to craft any sort of agreement have foundered almost immediately. Now, I think some of that, That is not by design. It's a lack of understanding. We continue to fail to listen to the Russians, to read what it is that they want, to consider their proposals. I mean, if you don't consider the other side's position, you're not likely to get very far. So I think that's part of the problem.

But the way I think we could get around this is if President Trump would seriously consider embracing a no-first-use pledge and policy for the president. the United States. The Chinese have one in any case, but all the nuclear powers in the world really ought to be summoned to a discussion by the president, and he could lead this. So if we accomplish nothing else with Russia or China or anybody else, at least we could get to the point where everyone pledges no first use. And given the fact that we have Ukrainians, thanks to the CIA, the NMI6, launching all of these strikes in deep into Russian territory, however irrelevant strategically they may be, the Russians have

rethought some of their assumptions about nuclear use. And we are uncomfortably close to a position where the Russians could respond, depending upon what's shot at them, with a nuclear warhead. And that's something they don't want. It's something we don't want. But we don't know what it will take. And we have too many reckless people trying to target things inside Russia, not just to harm Russia's military capacity, but to humiliate Russia.

If you try to humiliate them, you'd be surprised what they may be willing to do. So why not move beyond that? Why not go out forward as President of the United States and say, look, whatever happens in Ukraine or anywhere else, we must avoid at all costs, use of nuclear weapons. And I'm willing to sign this pledge and put the authority of the American people behind it. No first use of nuclear weapons, will you join me? I think that's something President Trump could actually accomplish.

Before we finish just briefly back to Iran, because the president just posted something on truth social. I'll read it. Iranian patriots, now in caps, keep protesting. Take over your institutions, three exclamation points, now in normal capitalization. Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price.

I have canceled all meetings with Iranian officials until the senseless killing of protesters. Now we're in caps again. Stops. Help is on its way. Miga. I guess that means make Iran great again, courtesy of Senator Graham, President Donald J. Trump. What does he mean? Help is on the way.

He means that the Ukrainians are actually. in a position to win the war. That dreams of Russians have died, that Russia is weak and cannot respond, that the peace that he crafted for Gaza is holding, that the people of Gaza are no longer dying and eventually are going to live in beachfront condos along with the Israelis.

This is all dangerous fantasy. That's the kindest thing that I can say. Colonel McGregor, thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Thank you for letting me go across the globe with all of these questions and pick your brain. All my best to you, sir. Okay, thank you, Judge. Thank you.

See you again soon. And coming up this afternoon at 2 o'clock, Matt Ho, at 3 o'clock, Colonel Karen Koukowski, Justice Napal Tena for judging freedom.