Judging Freedom - Col. Douglas Macgregor: World War III - Right Around The Corner?

Episode Date: January 29, 2024

Col. Douglas Macgregor: World War III - Right Around The Corner?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 Monday, January 29th, 2024. Colonel Douglas McGregor joins us now. Colonel MacGregor, thank you very much for your time and your insight. Do you see any path in Israel for the achievement of the publicly stated goals of Prime Minister Netanyahu of eradicating Hamas and returning the hostages? Not at the moment, no. I can't conceive of it. Because while he's made these statements publicly, you have to go back and look at what's happened since 7 October. And since 7 October, the campaign has focused on expelling or killing the population in Gaza.

I think the assumption is that whomever you kill in Gaza richly deserves it. If they happen to be members of Hamas, that's fine. If they're living there, they must be supportive of Hamas. So I think that's a secondary concern. And as far as the hostages go, I don't see any acute sensitivity to that issue. Right now, it's drive out the Arabs, and not just in Gaza. I think there's also an effort to do something very similar on the West Bank. I emphasized in my question, and I think you understood it that way, Prime Minister Netanyahu's publicly stated goals, but might his real goal be what he wants inadvertently or directly articulated to the UN, which is that Israel consists of all the land

from the river to the sea? Yes, he's briefed that to the United Nations. He supplied a map, and everybody looked at it and wondered where the Palestinians were. They were gone. So that's abundantly clear. He's also made those comments in Hebrew. So I think people need to understand this. Secondly, need to understand the Israeli population is behind it. They don't question this at all. They're 100% behind it. Here's a clip from Al Jazeera, but it's the two, what we've been calling extremist members of his main cabinet and his war cabinet, Ben Gavir and Smotrich, making demands of him in public and before large crowds. We don't know what they say to him in private, and maybe he agrees with this. But here they are in front of crowds making demands of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Mr. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, I'm addressing you from this stage. It's a shame to wait another 19 years to understand that Gush Katith and Northern Samaria must be returned. The responsibility of brave leadership is to make courageous decisions. We are settling our land from width to length, controlling it and fighting terror always and bringing with God's help security to all of Israel? You know what the answer is. Without settlement, there is no security.

To lengthen, I think we have what you and I discussed before we went on air. I believe we have Prime Minister Netanyahu on this. For 30 years, I am very consistent and I'm saying something very simple. This conflict is not on the lack of a state of Palestinian, but the existence of a state, the Jewish state. Every area that we evacuate, we receive terrible terror against that. It happened in South Lebanon, in Gaza and also Judea and Samaria, which we did it. And therefore, I clarify that in any other arrangement in the future,

the State of Israel have to control the entire area from the river to the sea. This is what happens when you have sovereignty. This truth I say to our American friends.

And I also stopped the attempt to impose us a reality that will jeopardize us. A prime minister in Israel has to be able to say no, even to the best of friends, to say no when you need to and to say yes when you can. I guess he has more courage than President Biden does. He can say no to Joe Biden, but Joe Biden can't say no to him. But it's obvious what he was talking about.

First, he said control from the river to the sea, which, of course, they don't have, but they're fighting to have. Then he said sovereignty from the river to the sea. Is there any question in your mind what he was talking about? No, not at all. Remember, he and frankly, most Israelis equate the final removal of all the Arabs that currently live in what they regard as greater Israel. This is the sea to the Jordan River as equating to their long-term security and survival. Remember, he said, for us, this is existential. Either all of these people have got to go and we control

everything, or we're finished. He's making the argument that Israel will not survive unless it executes this operation. I think we have to take him seriously. I think the Israelis believe it. The question is not what the Israelis want or what they believe, but what do the American people want and how do they feel? Are they comfortable with the wholesale removal of the Arab population, Muslim and Christian, from Gaza, its death or expulsion, or its killing directly or indirectly through disease and starvation, or not. If they're not comfortable with that, they need to get off their rear ends and call their representatives in Washington, because no one in Washington is opposed. I shouldn't say no, and I'm sure there are a few people, but there are so few paying any attention to it. I think it's really irrelevant. Netanyahu government, and as you indicated, among the Israeli population by an enormous

percentage. So should we take seriously, or are they lying to us when Joe Biden and Tony Blinken say two-state solution, two-state solution? No, I think they know that that's utterly unacceptable to the Israelis at this point. If there was a chance for that, it died some time ago. So it's an all or nothing proposition. Either all of the Arabs go or they don't. And in the minds of Israelis, if they're not removed, there is a permanent threat to their existence and they cannot tolerate that. The International Court of Justice, which did not order a ceasefire, it has no ability to enforce its order,

which did not find as a matter of fact and law that Israel is engaged in genocide, nevertheless told Israel not to engage in genocide and to report back to it in 30 days. The latter was by 16 to 1, which included the justice that was sent from Israel. As you know, South Africa got to add a justice to the court. It's very unique that they can do that. And Israel got to add a justice to the court. That vote was 16 to 1.

The other vote was 15 to 2. did the icj ruling burst the bubble of israel moral rectitude or had that bubble been burst by the idf in gaza outside of the united states and israel and the united kingdom probably australia new zealand i'd say it has burst. But as far as we're concerned, it's irrelevant. The International Court of Justice is irrelevant to us. We're not signatories. We don't respect it. We have no use for it. We don't care. And remember, the entire government on Capitol Hill is, with very few exceptions, is comfortable with what the Israelis are doing. That's my point. The only way to put a stop to this is for the American people to raise their voices

and say, we don't want to be party to this operation. It is inconsistent with our views of what is morally right or wrong. But it hasn't happened. No, no, there's somewhat of a movement in Michigan, which has probably the largest Palestinian or Arab population base of any state in the union, but it doesn't seem to have motivated the president at all. By the way, we should note that Americans, I think if they were asked, are equally opposed to the goals of hamas and other like-minded organizations that want to rid the middle east of jews we don't support that we would not stand by and allow that to happen i don't think we should stand by do nothing and allow this to happen i would simply urge the president to stop lying to the american people along with all of his colleagues all of whom have benefited enormously from the money poured into their organizations from the lobby and Israel's agents in the United States,

and simply say, if you're going to persist in this, you're going to have to do it alone. We're not going to underwrite it. We're not going to support it. I mean, I'm certainly not advocating that we should commit forces to stop it i don't believe in that i i didn't support that in the past i don't support it now but we should simply say that's completely inconsistent with our views of what is morally right and wrong and as the president i'm telling you right now if you persist we will withdraw our support. There is no clear path for the release of the hostages without a substantial ceasefire, and there is no willingness on the part of the Netanyahu government for a ceasefire. The ICJ, which is part of the United Nations, has said, stop the genocide and report back. Is there any fear on

the part of Washington that its senior people, Biden, Blinken, Austin, are supporting genocide? Well, first of all, the word genocide was not used, as far as I can tell, in the final judgment of the International Criminal Court, or Court of Justice, which I think is one of the reasons that the findings were 16 to 1. If the word genocide had been included, there would have been more numbers of judges who would have dissented from the ultimate decision. So, you know, we use we I have never used the word genocide. Genocide to me is on a much larger scale. Now, that doesn't mean that it will not be achieved in Gaza. I think that's Justice. And most Americans have paid little or no attention. Americans are currently focused on the southern border, what's happening down there. I think in that sense, Americans are finally beginning to wake up to something that I and others have been talking about for years. That's a good thing. But they're not too terribly concerned

about the Israelis and what they do until, of course, we are drawn into war in the region. That's another matter entirely, and we're very close to that. We'll get to that in just a moment. Is Israel no longer feared by other Middle Eastern state actors? I think that the Middle East, its elites, certainly the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Lebanon, no doubt, but they all want to avoid a regional war. They want to avoid it because they know what the damage will be to their infrastructure. They know the consequences for their populations. And I think they fear their removal. But the point is that events are moving to that precipice of removing them as it is.

The populations in the region, the Muslim Arabs in particular, and the Turks, I would say, are very close to it, are so angry and so enraged. They're ready to fight regardless of what the costs are, to destroy Israel. I think this is something everybody misses. Mr. Netanyahu, in my judgment, was wrong when he said destroying Hamas and removing the population in Gaza was an existential requirement for the state of Israel. I don't think it was. I think he could have scaled back his objectives and achieved a degree of security that could have been infinitely better than what already exists. There were things that could be done. That's gone now. He's given the final answer. It's his way or the highway. As a result, increasingly across the Middle East, everyone who is in power or authority is privately saying

Sykes-Picot is over. In other words, we will no longer tolerate this Israeli state. And they are moving towards a state of war across the region, which will culminate, I think, in the destruction of Israel. I don't think we can stop it. What is the significance, or what will be the significance of the American response to the deaths of three soldiers and the injury of 34 at some outpost in the middle of nowhere at the Jordan-Syrian border? The deaths of these soldiers, and I think some of them may be from the California National Guard, I've been trying to find out, by the way, will be potentially used as a justification for further escalation against Iran. As we know, the desire to wage war in Iran has been going on for two decades. We forget how much support and sustainment and equipment and training we pumped into Saddam Hussein's regime in his war against Iran. It killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians.

And at the time, we applauded. We thought it was wonderful. Henry Kissinger thought the war was great because it was killing large numbers, not only of Iranians, but also Arabs. That cynicism has not been forgotten. The notion that the hostility we are dealing with today simply began last week is wrong. But we need to understand that Iran is telling the truth when it says it did not order explicitly these Iraqi resistance organizations or Shiite militias to attack us. They did not. The Intelligence Committee has already stated that.

We have to understand that these are Arab militias. The Arabs in Yemen, in the Houthis, the Arabs in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah, the Arabs in Iraq and Syria, they are all anti-Israeli. Why are they attacking us? Because we are unconditionally supporting the destruction of the Arab population in Gaza. If that were to halt, or at least we were to do what I just stated earlier, essentially say, we're not going to be a party to this, the attacks on us would end. There is no desire on the part of Iran or anyone else in the region to go to war with us. We, however, have been desperately seeking this opportunity, looking for an excuse. Is this enough? I don't know. You have to look at American opinion polls.

And remember, we always have, what, about a third of the electorate that cheers, regardless of whom we bomb. I mean, if we bombed Panama tomorrow morning, a third of the electorate would stand up and say, oh, it's wonderful. It's great. Americans have no fear of war because it always happens on someone else's soil. And that is about to change if we attack Iran. Senator Graham has said we should bomb Tehran. No surprise that he would say it, as absurd as it is. But if we do anything like that, what will Iran do? Attack Israel? I think we will pay a heavy price. Iran has an enormous arsenal of missiles. I urge everyone to go online. It's very easy to find out and look at this enormous arsenal. Thousands of very precise, very destructive theater ballistic missiles, as well as tactical ballistic missiles. missile technology infinite numbers of drones now what was fired i think was a crude tactical ballistic missile by these shiite arabs they've been given older technology and allowed to have that but the iranians have not provided them with their top-of-the-line equipment if those are

employed not only are they in a position to attack with great precision all of our positions in the region. Remember, we have about 57,000 Americans in uniform in the region. Almost 30,000 or perhaps a little more are in bases that are sitting. Yes, that's an excellent demonstration of what exists. Go to the right and work your way down. The ones to the right are what your way down. The ones to the right are what I would call blockbusters. These are missiles that would flatten cities, flatten military installations, destroy airfields, harbors. They're all conventional warheads,

but the destructive power is enormous. And it's precise. If the Iranians shoot at something, they hit it. They just demonstrated that a couple of weeks ago when they struck targets in Syria and Iraq. And listen, they could have done infinitely more damage. I think they were all in Syria, but they could have done much more damage. They chose not to. When you destroy a Mossad position with a Kurdish man and his family who are Mossad agents, and that is in close proximity to the United States embassy, you demolish the house, kill everybody in it, but you do no damage to anything that is American or American personnel, that should tell everyone they have extraordinary technology that can be used against us all over the region.

They have hypersonic missiles. Now, these are of Chinese manufacture, but they are of a Russian invention originally. And these hypersonic missiles are in a position to strike targets at sea. And there's no way to shoot them down or defend against them. You have a British aircraft carrier, an american aircraft carrier in the red sea or the indian ocean they can be targeted because everyone now has access to overhead surveillance overhead surveillance with the kind of ability to read the names on gravestones that did not exist in those countries 20 years ago. So their targeting is

very precise. And ships at sea, regardless of whether they're nuclear or conventionally powered, are slow. These are slow-moving targets. Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy. And the point is that these hypersonic missiles can adjust. So if they fire these things, they will hit their targets. And you have mentioned Israel. If the Israelis are participating with us in direct strikes on Iran, then I think the arsenal will be launched in great quantities from numerous different locations, all of which we cannot be positively identified, and they will reduce most of Israel to ashes. As we speak, literally as we speak, Republican and Democratic members of Congress are calling the White House and saying, attack, attack, attack. We have to look strong. What would you

advise the president to do? Would you say take those 57,000 troops and bring them home immediately? Oh, yes. In fact, that's what Donald Trump wanted to do in November of 2020. Of course, he had tried earlier. He failed because he didn't understand that simply giving an order meant nothing in Washington in the federal bureaucracy. You have to follow up. You have to hold the military officers and the diplomats accountable who systematically avoid executing your order. He wanted our forces out of Syria. He wanted them out of Iraq. And he had good reason for that because these little penny packets of forces are easy targets. Again, it's back to something we just don't say enough. We have been facing opponents without armies, air forces, air defenses. That is about to end. Iran, Turkey,

certainly Hezbollah, these are real forces with real capability. We haven't had to face that. By the way, neither have the Israelis, and the Israelis would be the first to tell you privately that too many of their soldiers and officers have spent too much policing, policing people on the West Bank and around Gaza. that's what they're asking for, and they'll get it if they don't stop. And we are going to get it. And remember, Hezbollah has substantial facilities and concentrations of people in Mexico. So do Islamists who are Sunni Muslims in Mexico. We don't even know who has actually entered the United States. I mean, no one seemed to care when thousands of military-age men from China and other countries entered the United States. Nobody seems to have gotten very exercised until quite recently when they realized that Arabs and Iranians and others and Malays and other Muslims from different parts of the country had also entered. Suddenly, people are beginning to realize it. Well, what about our nuclear power

facilities? What about our power grid? What about the weapons that exist that are in the hands of the cartels? Now, the cartels want to continue to infect us and destroy us with drugs because that's where they make their money. But organized crime frequently cooperates for enough money with other entities, state and non-state actors, who have an interest in harming us. We should not write off the very high probability that if this war goes forward, we will face a second front along the Mexican border and potentially a third front inside the United States. Does Hezbollah in Mexico have the military equipment that Hezbollah in Lebanon has? First of all, that's classified. I'm sure people that are operating in the intelligence committees can give you a better answer. All I can tell you is that certainly in terms of surveillance equipment, small arms, RPGs, and some shoulder-fired air defense missiles,

they are extremely well-equipped. So are the cartels. And they exchange data, they exchange information, they work together. This is not a new phenomenon. The IRA was working with Islamist terrorist organizations in North Africa. People were shocked. Well, of course. You know, all of these various entities have agendas, and they sometimes coincide. What would you tell Joe Biden to do? Other than make arrangements to go to the nearest rest home, you know, I would certainly suggest that he stop harassing Texas and the other Republican

state governors, that he stay away from the Texas National Guard, let the Texas National Guard do its job of protecting those states. And as far as New Mexico and California that apparently regard themselves as not really part of the United States and therefore don't care what happens to their borders, we should consider putting federal troops there immediately. I meant what would you advise them to do with respect to Israel and the soldiers that were killed in Syria or Jordan, wherever it was? Well, first of all, it would be very useful for us to privately, behind the scenes, talk to these various actors.

But clearly, there is no mission for U.S. forces in the region on the ground in Iraq or Syria. They're effectively magnets for attack. They have been in that position now for quite a while. There's nothing for them to do. ISIS is not a big issue any longer. Between the Iranians and the Shiite militias they trained and the Russians, ISIS has been largely eliminated. I know everyone likes to beat their chest and argue that we did the bulk of the work. We did not. It was done by Iranians

and Russians. And we worked with them, by the way, even the Iranians that we now want to attack. People don't seem to get it and understand what's real and what isn't. But the bottom line is we should get them out. There's no reason for them to be there. If Iran and Israel are in a war and we come to the aid of Israel, will Russia get involved on the side of Iran? Well, Russia has made it very clear that it regards Iran as a strategic partner of great importance. There is an agreement that's on the table for signature by Moscow that would effectively permanently arrange things to ensure that Russia does come to Iran's aid. But I think

that's a formality. Russia will not stand by and allow us to destroy Iran. They will provide Iran with whatever it needs to protect itself, and they will stand by Iran. By the way, the Chinese, who have critical interests in access to the Persian Gulf and access to East Africa, where they get great quantities of food, will not stand by and do nothing while we force iran to submit or die in which case iran will fight and probably close the suez you can write off the or excuse me not the suez the straits of hormuz you can write off the suez along with the, you know, the straits down between Africa and Yemen, which I think is called the Gate of Tears. Those things will all be closed. You know, the Chinese have already taken actions to protect themselves by making it impossible for us to gain access to a number of

upstream minerals that we regard as essential to our national security and the building of military equipment. They're concerned about what we're prepared to do. We need to back away from this. This will become regional and, I would say, semi-global very quickly. And the greatest danger is that the Israelis will respond with the use of a nuclear weapon, particularly as they watch their cities, Tel Av Haifa and so forth largely annihilated by these arsenals of missiles and if that were to happen I think that that would have catastrophic consequences for Israel in the world far worse than anything we've seen thus far Colonel thank you very much you've just uh experienced the largest audience you've ever had on this show of those watching live, which usually translates into an enormous audience of those who will be watching streaming. Thanks for your time. Thanks for your insight. We'll talk to you again soon, my friend.

Sure. Thank you, Judge. Of course. Bye-bye. What a terrifying picture he painted, but with such logic and precision and understanding. Coming up for the rest of this week, all of your regulars, Colonel Kwiatkowski, Matt Ho, Professor Sachs, Professor Mearsheimer, and of course, Scott Ritter, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.