Judging Freedom - Col. Douglas Macgregor : Will Israel Go Nuclear?

Episode Date: April 16, 2024

Col. Douglas Macgregor : Will Israel Go Nuclear?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, April 16th, 2024. Colonel Douglas McGregor joins us now. Colonel, thanks very much for your time. I would like to spend the bulk of our conversation with your analysis of the weekend in Israel. Can you give us an update of what is happening in Ukraine? Is it true that Ukrainian troops have been surrendering, Colonel? Yes. In fact, there's a lot of evidence for large-scale surrenders at this point. And I think it's because the Russians have done a very good job of sending messages to the opposing Ukrainian forces, telling them, look, there's no reason for this to continue. You don't need to die.

You surrender. Come on over. Give up the weapons. We'll feed you. We'll take care of your wounded. And then we will actually send people with you to the detention area. You will be treated well. And as soon as

this war is over we can get back to some degree of normality you could go home and so it's made it much easier for large numbers of Ukrainian troops that would otherwise feel obligated to stay and die to give up now the interesting part is that apparently within the last 24 hours one of the more notorious organizations in the Ukrainian military, which uses all of these Nazi symbols that we're familiar with, apparently refused to fight. They simply told the government, you know, we've had it. We're not going to die in great numbers any longer. We will not fight. the combination of, on the one hand, people giving up because they see no purpose, and even the most stalwart supporters of the regime giving up, or at least refusing to fight, suggests that this may end more rapidly than even I thought it would. Because the Russians are

following up. They're moving towards the Dnieper River. And I think within the next 45 days or so, we're going to see them in command of Kharkov and virtually everything that is east of the Dnieper River. Now, the question is, when do they cross and seize Odessa? I have no idea. But I think within 45 days, what I described will probably be largely in Russian hands. Are these representations made by the Russian troops to induce surrender credible, or is this a Tokyo Rose type thing? No, they're absolutely credible. That's one of the reasons the Ukrainians are, in many cases,

are saying, let's get this over with and be done with it. The Russians, contrary to the propaganda in the West, have treated anyone who came voluntarily to them, surrendered very, very well. In fact, the Ukrainian soldiers have probably been better fed and received better medical care than they did when they were in their own force. So, no, this is very credible. You know, again, if you go back to President Putin's interview, at one point he told Tucker, you know, this is more than what you think it is. It's more like a civil war.

And he talked about Ukrainian units where everyone in the formation spoke Russian and said, we won't surrender because we're Russians. They didn't refer to themselves as Ukrainian. So there's more going on here than I think we realize. And the good news is I think we're at the end of this pointless and destructive struggle. What will happen to surrendered Ukrainian troops when they try to repatriate? I guess that depends on who's running the government at the time of the repatriation. Well, that's a fear that actually many of the Ukrainian soldiers have expressed. There has always been an understandable fear of the Ukrainian secret police, what they call the SBU. People have been afraid that they, like Stalin's NKVD, would visit their families and kill their families if they surrendered. But I think the current government and even its secret police are overwhelmed now.

I don't think they can cope much longer, Judge. This is not covered in the Western media at all, what you've just discussed in the past four minutes, Colonel. I think Senator Vance, who published an op-ed in the, I guess it was the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal, did the simple math and tried to make the point that this is over and it should end. So at least that much has gotten through. And yet the Republican Speaker of the House plans to hold a vote on the $61 billion Senate sent over package to give Joe Biden something to crow about. What good is it going to do them now? Nothing. No, but the problem we have with the Speaker of the House, as we do with, I would say,

the majority of people sitting on the Hill, is that they don't really represent American interests. They represent the interests of their donors, and you have to look at who's paying the money. And they don't understand what you've just explained. They don't want to know what's going on. They just view this as the sort of Victoria Nuland, Lindsey Graham battering ram to drive Vladimir Putin, as fanciful as this sounds, from office. Well, I think the fantasy is at an end. Okay.

Even if Washington hasn't figured it out, it's over and people will eventually come around to understanding this. But sending anything over there fiscally makes no sense. did the Ukrainian government succeed in delivering the message it attempted to deliver? Or, as the Western media would have you believe, was this a defensive triumph with virtually nothing leaking through? You mean the Iranian military? Did I say Ukraine? I meant Iran. We're still one foot in Ukraine at this point. We need to get out. Correct. Thank you. No, I don't think the people in the West were attuned to receiving any messages. But the Iranians, I think, were very careful in how they executed this operation to make it abundantly clear,

even though we have not necessarily been told that that they did not want to kill anyone particularly civilians and they targeted military installations they did hit some as we now know and they did inflict some damage and they simply wanted the Israelis to understand that they have the capability to precisely strike but they did not use their best weaponry they did not use uh many of the capabilities at their disposal that we might have otherwise seen but the message is obvious if we can penetrate your air and missile defenses with old weaponry by diverting your attention with these uh slow-flying low-flying drones, then we can obviously do this with our best weapons. But I don't think it makes any difference. I don't think any positive message

was received anywhere. Is that because of the attitude and the view that the Israeli government has of itself, or is it indifferent to reality? Well, I don't think everyone is indifferent to reality, but I think they want to deny it. The Israelis, as I think Alistair Crook pointed out very eloquently, are in a lot of trouble. The Gaza campaign has not gone well. Hezbollah is very much intact. The West Bank is unruly and tense. And the Israeli population has begun to wonder whether or not they can possibly win anything. But there is also this fatalistic dimension to their character that says, well, if we can't have what we want, we'll just go down fighting and do as much damage on the way down as we can I think Alistair Crook is right about that on the other hand uh Netanyahu and his war cabinet have a trump card the trump card is the United States Armed Forces

the backing of the United States and I don't think they pay any attention to anything that President Biden says or does we know that he said we would not join in any future retaliation against Iran, but I don't think they'd take that seriously because they have more influence on the Hill and inside our government right now than President Biden does. Did the, did the, what is your view from a military perspective of what Iran did? The sending of drones intentionally to draw defensive weaponry, identifying the location of the defensive weaponry and wasting them. according to Scott Ritter the Israelis spent about a billion dollars in one night a lot of money for a government of that size and then if you add what the British, Jordanians and Americans spent you can almost double that do you agree with those assessments?

I think Scott's right I don't know that it was a billion it could have been 1.2 or 1.3 billion but obviously utilizing million dollar missiles to shoot down drones that may cost a couple of thousand dollars each is an obvious waste of time money and resources but clearly they they have a much better picture now of israeli air and missile defense now keep something else in mind mind. The Israelis did a very good job of protecting themselves. I don't think anybody doubts it. But what we need to take from this is an understanding that it is possible always for any enemy that has accumulated large

numbers of missiles, whether they are the most modern or old, doesn't make much difference. It is very possible for an enemy to overwhelm any air and missile defense system with enough projectiles. And I think that was part of the message that the Israelis were sending. I mean, just imagine, as I pointed out in the article, what would have happened if they'd sent 1,500 tactical ballistic missiles and, you know, 3,000 or 4,000 drones in waves over a period of 24 to 48 hours, which the Iranians are capable of doing. Well, they would have exhausted the air and missile defenses very quickly.

That doesn't even include the target hits that would have destroyed many of the anti-missile batteries that are on the ground. And we don't know what would happen in the air because we haven't had anybody fly against Iranian air defenses. They have the S-400. We'll find out if that S-400 Russian system is as good as everybody says it is. But the bottom line is you can overwhelm any air and missile defense system. And I hope that the Israelis took that message, but I'm afraid that they're going to go on the offensive.

How extensive is the Iranian arsenal? question is an important one. Several people have reported the use of two or three or four hypersonic missiles. I haven't been able to personally confirm it, but then again, with this administration, despite my clearance, I do not have any access to that kind of information. They may, in fact, have used some of those. But I think we need to understand that they have access to at least as modern missile technology as we do, thanks to the Russians, the Chinese, and obviously the North Koreans, and that that technology is enough to overcome any air and missile defense system the Israelis could build. It's very simple. And do the Israelis understand that, Colonel? The last part of what you just

said, they have enough to overcome any defensive system that the Israelis can build. Does the Netanyahu government know that? I think privately behind the scenes, they've reached that conclusion. But that hasn't dissuaded them from further action. In fact, I think they view that as making further action imperative. In other words, we need to attack these people and deprive them of the command and control deprive them of some of their best weapon systems attack their

arsenals attack their underground facilities especially their alleged nuclear facility underground they have a nuclear facility on the surface as well, but it's not utilized for the military anymore. It's utilized primarily for civilian purposes. But nevertheless, I think they've decided they're going to have to go in and inflict very serious damage on Iran. That's the only way forward as far as they're concerned. I don't think they can imagine living in the Middle East with countries around them that are equal to or greater than they in terms of military power. Here's Lord David Cameron, a British foreign minister, giving sort of the Western view of things. Now, we know a lot more now than we did when he made the statement,

which is Sunday morning British time on a British talk show, cut number eight. What about Iran's frustration at part of its sovereign territory being flattened? Well, I would argue there is a massive degree of difference between what Israel did in Damascus. And as I said, 301 weapons being launched by the state of Iran at the state of Israel for the first time, a state-on-state attack. 101 ballistic missiles, 36 cruise missiles, 185 drones. That is a degree of difference. And I think a reckless and dangerous thing for Iran to have done. And I think the whole world can see all these countries that have somehow wondered, well, you know, what is the true nature of Iran? It's there in black and white. As I saw this colonel, I thought he's missed the degree of difference. The degree of difference is

the Israelis murdered two generals and killed 15 other people and destroyed a legally immune target known as a consulate adjacent to an embassy. The Iranians didn't kill anyone and targeted purely intelligence and military. No, I think that's true. The other thing that he doesn't bother to point out is that the Iranians were very open about what they were going to do. They actually informed us through intelligence channels, through the Central Intelligence Agency, that they would under no circumstances attack any of our installations provided we did not attack theirs. We knew that.

Secondly, they were very transparent that it would come within the next two or three days and that it would consist of largely what we saw in terms of drones and tactical ballistic missiles. So, you know, he's not telling you the rest of the story. The Israelis, needless to say, did not inform anybody of their intention or readiness to do anything in Syria. They simply did what they've always done. They saw targets, they thought they were lucrative, and they wanted to inflict harm, and they did. And as you point out, that even though today people are saying, oh, no, it was a safe house, oh, no, that's not true. No, I'm sorry, it is true. This was a consulate, and they may not have liked the people in it, but attacking it is

off limits as far as international law is concerned. Of course, we know that international law is something we only pay attention to when it suits us. That's certainly true for Israel. Right, right. Just to liven things up a little bit, here is a member of parliament, George Galloway, ripping into the prime minister. But the prime minister's response is interesting because it's nearly verbatim what we just heard from his foreign minister, who's the former prime minister, his cut number nine.

Speaker, I knew your father well for a very long time. He was a fine man, and I am sincerely sorry for your loss. There was not one single word in the Prime Minister's statement of condemnation of the Israeli destruction of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which is the proximate reason for the event everyone is here in concert condemning. He was not even asked to do so by the front bench opposite. Kay Burley is the only person so far to demand that of a government minister. We have no treaty with Israel, at least not one that Parliament has been shown, and the nid yw'n un sydd wedi cael ei ddangos yn y Sgwrs. Nid yw'r Iranwyr yn debygol o glywed

ei fod yn ei wneud pan oedd Brifysgol Britain wedi cymryd Iran, wedi llwthio ei gwerth a chynnal ei gyllid yn un cyllid democraith, cymdeithasol, yn fy mhrofiad. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr, ond mae'n dda i mi. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr.

Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr.

Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. Rwy'n dweud yn fawr. from one sovereign state towards israel it's as simple as that and in the honorable gentleman's question not once did he condemn that action or indeed the actions of hamas in the region there is no equivalence between these things whatsoever and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong did the br he's such a pimp george Galloway, did the British government materially participate in the defense of Israel on Saturday night?

Yes. They had some aircraft in the air that apparently participated in shooting down these drones that are low and slow remember it took the drones practically four hours to fly all the way to Israel and they were detected immediately the Iranians made no attempt to hide anything and as a result they were generally speaking very easy targets but as I think your other guests have pointed out they did the Iranians a great service by showing the Iranians where the Israeli air and missile defenses are, their radar systems and command and control. And that's really what the Iranians were interested in. They didn't really want to hurt anybody because they don't want to escalate this. They don't want a war. Israel very definitely has an interest in escalating.

As I said earlier, as long as they've got us in a position where we are obliged to support them, and that's certainly the case in Washington, then they're going to act. But this, you know, Mr. Sunak is saying exactly what his foreign minister said. They're all saying exactly what's being said in Washington. So they're all singing from exactly the same sheet of music. My hat's off to them. It's very well orchestrated. Can Israel defeat Iran without the United States?

No. No. But again, the Israelis know that, but they assume that we will come in one way or the other. Well, one way or the other must mean air and naval. Could you even envision troops on the ground? No, no. You could certainly insert special operators into Iran. I mean, this is an enormous country.

It's the size of Western Europe. There are about 85 to 89 million people in it, something like that. And if you put that number of people into Western Europe, Western Europe would look almost uninhabited. So we can certainly insert special operations teams in there and they can direct strategic attacks against the Iranian armed forces and its population. But other than air and naval, no, that's all you're going to see. see what is your uh greatest fear uh with respect to israel and iran colonel particularly if for whatever reason the netanyahu government believes its back is to a wall i think that mentality is all we've already taken root their view is that it's their way

or the highway and their way means that the entire region has to be subjugated or at least docile vis-a-vis israel and accept whatever israel does which is always justified on the basis of their history and of course the second world war i think uh the greatest fear that i have is that once iran Iran is attacked decisively in some fashion by Israel, that we will involve ourselves and contribute to it. And when that occurs, Russia will intervene. Russia will not permit us with the Israelis to destroy Iran. Simply isn't going to happen. Those ties are very close they're not just

uh politically advantageous they have economic foundations and Russia is tired of us you know we've done enormous tried to do enormous damage to them we've succeeded in destroying Ukraine but Russia hasn't forgotten and Russia is not going to tolerate it. And that puts us in a difficult position because the Israelis may use at some point nuclear weapons. That has to be the greatest fear is their use of nuclear weapons. That is notwithstanding what prime minister Netanyahu famously or infamously told the UN where he had that cartoon of himself holding a bomb. The cartoon was of the bomb, not of himself.

Do the Israelis know that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon? Yes. And does everybody know in the region, governments I'm talking about, not people in the streets, that Israel does have many nuclear weapons, however they acquired them. Yes. In other words, the Israelis have both the warheads and the delivery systems. The Iranians have delivery systems that could be configured to carry a nuclear warhead, but Iran is what you call a threshold nuclear state. In other words, it's reached the point where it could, in a relatively short period of time, perhaps weeks, perhaps months,

build warheads that have nuclear capabilities. But they haven't done it. They haven't done it. There's a fatwa that was issued some time ago banning it. They've refused to do it. The Russians have reassured them that, you know, they will stand by them. But whatever you do, don't cross that threshold. They haven't. The same agreement is with the Chinese. The Chinese are, of course, standing in the background. They will support the Russians and the Iranians if they're pushed to do it because they're so dependent on the oil and natural gas that comes out of the Straits of Hormuz. But yes, everyone knows that the Israelis have this. And let's be frank,

as Mr. Erdogan pointed out in one of his speeches a couple of months ago, the Israelis have frequently threatened the use of a nuclear weapon against people in the region. And he says, we know what you have, and we're not afraid of you. And I think that's the problem now. I think that the region is no longer afraid of Israel. And that's the greatest single danger as far as Mr. Netanyahu is concerned, because that means the Israeli notion of deterrence, which is total fear of what Israel can do, is absolutely essential. And if people are not afraid of it, then Israel will not survive. That's his view.

Colonel, are you fearful, or let me restate it, can you envision Prime Minister Netanyahu asking his war cabinet for their consent for him to use nuclear weapons delivered into Iran. Yes, I'm sure that he would unhesitatingly use that capability against Hezbollah, because Hezbollah is probably at least as well fortified and dug in as the Ukrainians were in the Donbass. So, you know, this view is we're not going to trade Israeli soldiers' lives for, you know, half a mile or two miles of ground. We're going to essentially destroy it. When it comes to Iran, the Israelis have convinced themselves that there will be no security for Israel as long as any state in the region, specifically Iran, has the capability to go nuclear. They know that Iran is a threshold

nuclear state. Mr. Netanyahu has been very straightforward about it. We will not tolerate that. And I imagine they would use tactical nuclear weapons to try and destroy the underground facilities. Now, the Iranians have anticipated this. They've distributed their command and control. They have placed missiles in various areas. They have clusters, and they have a command and control system that's very redundant and designed under worst cases to operate independently. All of that is on the minds of the Israelis if they go in there.

Plus the fact that most of what they would deliver is probably going to be from the air. And if they're going to do that, they need U.S. Air Force refueling assets. We can obviously decline to provide those. But the Israelis also have submarines that can launch cruise missiles. And they, too, are nuclear capable. So, you know, the Israelis can get at the Iranians in various ways. Will it work? I don't think so. Will it stop the war? No. Will it make matters much worse? Yes. And that's the great danger. I think Israel itself

has from the very beginning put its very existence at risk when it doesn't need to. But that's my personal opinion. I'm not anxious to see Israel destroyed. I would like to see it survive. But I think under Mr. Netanyahu's leadership, that's going to be very difficult in the months ahead. Colonel, is this Bibi Netanyahu's dream? Is this what he has always wanted during his prime ministership?

You know, there are people, others who have studied him in great detail that can give you an opinion on the man. I have always regarded him as intelligent and ruthless, a Jewish patriot, if you will. And I think he is. I just think he's wrongheaded. And I think that the very thing that he loves and wants to preserve under all circumstances, regardless of the conditions, which is the state of Israel, is the very thing that could go out of business as a result of his policies. But I hold the minority opinion. You know, the majority of people in Israel, they may not like him, but they absolutely confide great trust and confidence in his leadership and they believe in his policies. Does he understand that Russia might enter the picture if it appears that Iran's back is to the wall?

I think he's aware of it. He may not really believe it, but he's aware of it. He may not really believe it, but he's aware of it. He certainly knows the Russians have forces on the Golan Heights, making it abundantly clear what they will or will not tolerate in Syria. But again, I think he's betting heavily on us, that whatever he does, we will back him. Whatever he does, we will ultimately support it and that we are prepared to go to war against Iran and, if necessary, against Russia. And I've argued repeatedly now for many, many months, as you know, the last couple of years, we're not prepared for a major regional war anywhere right now.

And we'd be hard-pressed to participate in one and certainly are very unlikely to win one. Therefore, this is not a good time for us to even contemplate such a thing. But I think that's his assumption. And based upon the attitude in Washington to this point, Judge, I think it's not an unreasonable assumption on his part that we will do what he says. Do your former colleagues, the people who are now running the Defense Department, understand what you just said, that we are not equipped for this type of military maneuver? Are they going to tell Joe Biden whatever they think he wants to hear?

I think it's a mix. I think some understand what I've said. But in the past, they've used these arguments to argue for more money. More money is not the solution, unfortunately, in defense. We need a fundamental overhaul, reorganization, radical redesign, and a radical reorientation of national defense. Nobody wants to go there. And I think as a result, the senior military leadership will go along regardless of what President Biden and, more important, his advisors say. They'll go along with them. They're not going to put up a huge fight. They may advise against things. And I think that, to his credit, Secretary Austin has actually done that on more than one occasion and said, you know, this far but no further, we're really not postured to do what you want us to do he's made that clear i

think in eastern europe but this is a different animal and again you have a lot of people who mistakenly believe well if we're not going to use ground forces it doesn't matter the american people won't care they're not thinking in terms of what kind of damage can be done to us not just but by the iranians but certainly by the Russians, if Iran is attacked and the Russians come to their aid, particularly at sea. Meanwhile, we have about a thousand Marines on an island off the coast of Taiwan taunting China. Yeah, well, that's another subject. And unfortunately, you know, if you say the Chinese are not a military threat, and they're not, you it's always useful if Washington can distract the American people by pointing to enemies overseas. largest live audience it has ever had in the two and a half years of our existence, thanks to the credibility that you have with this audience and the insightfulness and, quite frankly, courage

of your statements. I'm going to crow a little bit and ask everybody watching us now to like and subscribe so you get notification when the great Colonel Douglas McGregor comes on again. Colonel, thank you very much for your time, my dear friend. Well, Judge, thanks for inviting me. I appreciate it. Of course. Bye-bye. Bye.

Coming up, the great, great, great interview that the Colonel just gave us, my dear friends. Coming up later today, Matt Ho at two o'clock on these same subjects, Karen Kwiatkowski at three o'clock on what she told the Security Council of the United Nations last week, Anya Parampol at four, and at five o'clock, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!