Transcription
We have a strong Israel-first problem in the very senior ranks of the U.S. armed forces. And now you mentioned Hixson. Hixson, of course, I'm told, has been among the most vocal supporters of all this. And he and apparently our friend, the CIA director, have both said, "No, no, no, we have to keep bombing, keep bombing." And of course, the Air Force has always taken the position, "If you bomb long enough, you'll win."
>> Mhm. That's crazy. No.
>> It's not an answer, and it's really not what we want to do. And when people bring up World War II, I always look at them and say, "We firebombed the Japanese. We firebombed the Germans. We killed billions of people that didn't need to die."
Joining us now to give us an update on where things are headed or where things stand with Iran is Colonel Douglas McGregor. Colonel Douglas McGregor served as the senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense in Trump's first administration. And about three months later, he was appointed to the board of the U.S. Military Academy. And his commentary, his analysis, has been very valuable to me personally. He has a new Substack piece out that I highly recommend reading. It's titled, "Judgment Day for Trump's War: A Path to Peace Begins by Shaking Up the Pentagon." Douglas, thank you so much for joining us.
>> Happy to be here. One truth in advertising: the West Point Board of Visitors fired me almost instantly after Trump failed to win the election, so...
>> Biden, yeah, Biden let you go.
>> Never joined.
>> [laughter]
>> Well, you know, I I got to say, I'm a little disappointed that your advice isn't at all being listened to in the in the Trump administration right now, because, you know, I listened to your conversations with Danny Davis. I listened to your conversations with Mario Nafal. And you know what's what's on, and you understand our military limitations when it comes to this war against Iran. And had Trump listened to people like you, I don't think he would have entered that war, and now we find ourselves in a quagmire. But I'm a very cynical person at this point, because we've gone back and forth, back and forth with these alleged peace talks. You know, I'm surprised that we haven't attacked Iran again in the middle of peace negotiations. We seem to have a knack for that. But I do want to get a sense of where you stand on this. Do you think there's a genuine, good faith effort by the U.S. government to secure a peace deal?
>> Uh, it's difficult for me to say that. I'm I'm sure that President Trump would like to see something emerge from this. But he may be alone in his wishes, which is part of the problem. Uh, the second thing is, this has nothing to do right now with peace negotiations. This is all a memorandum of understanding.
>> Mhm.
>> It, whose real purpose is to get to the point where we can fully open the Strait of Hormuz. Everybody, of course, forgets that the Strait of Hormuz was open, and there was no problem until we attacked Iran. But for some reason, people seem to think that we should now begin the attacking again here in Washington in order to open that straight, because the evil Iranians are responsible for this. That's a lot of nonsense, but there are a lot of people in Washington with lots of illusions. And that's one of the reasons I wrote what I did.
>> Well, speaking of one of the individuals who seems to be completely delusional, is Senator Lindsey Graham, who just this week had alleged, or had given Trump the advice on Fox News, that the right course of action is to militarily take control of the Strait of Hormuz. And, okay, I want you to answer two things. Number one, explain why that's not possible, but secondly, do you think Lindsey Graham knows that it's not possible, or is he really this stupid?
>> Well, I don't think Lindsey Graham is stupid. None of the people that you're listening to in Washington are necessarily stupid. You have to look at where their money comes from. And if you understand where the contributions to his continued presence in office are coming from, then you understand the positions he takes. And that's why he's uh, 199.9% with AIPAC and the Israel lobby. So, I would just dismiss that part.
The first question is a very important one. No, we are not equipped militarily right now to seize control of the street. Very few people have looked at the geography. It is extremely tough, very difficult to deal with. But beyond that, Iran has mastered something that we saw emerge in eastern Ukraine. We watched the Russians demonstrate it. But we don't seem to have paid any attention to it. And what the Iranians have done is that they have linked space-based surveillance, persistent surveillance, constant surveillance, with all the intelligence and reconnaissance platforms at their disposal, to provide instantaneous targeting data to a multitude of weapon systems, mostly theater ballistic missiles, uh, tactical ballistic missiles, all kinds of unmanned systems, anything that falls into the category of unmanned or stand-off attack. To the point where anything that moves within three, four, 500 miles of the Iranian border is going to be picked up, monitored, tracked, and if necessarily, targeted and destroyed. And this is the problem. It's not a question of, can you break through something and get there? No, you can't. If you try to sail a ship through this thing, you're going to be hit by multiple tactical ballistic missiles and probably lots of unmanned systems; you'll either be neutralized or sunk. Yeah, we don't necessarily want to go through that catharsis, and so we have been unwilling to try and force our way through the strait.
If you try to use ground forces, can you get them in there? Well, then you have to go through the air defense system, which has gotten increasingly better, far more lethal now and capable than it was at the beginning. And what are you going to do with it? Well, take islands, seize the city of 250,000 people in Bandar Abbas in southern the Gulf. It's not going to do you much good. It's going to be a miserable experience, and you're probably going to get everybody killed. If they do get in there at all and are not shot out of the sky or shot out of the ocean on their way in, then they're going to be annihilated once they land. I think these things have been made clear to President Trump, but these things are not understood in Washington. And so lots of people are very angry. I mean, remember, we're the greatest country in the world, we have the greatest armed forces in the world that were all rebuilt just a few years ago, remember? It's just forces are absurd. It takes 10 years to build an army. You know, to build a navy, 20 to 30. Then who are we kidding? That's nonsense. We're dealing with legacy forces that have been with us really all through the Cold War, certainly over the last 30 years. So, this is the wrong force for the mission. And we, it's not a question of, don't we have good soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines? Of course, that's not the issue. It's the wrong force for the wrong mission in the wrong place at the wrong time.
>> What is your, uh, I guess, evaluation of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's conduct throughout this war in Iran?
>> Well, let me back up and just say that if you read the Substack, what I try to get across to people is that even though we understand that President Trump's the commander in chief, he's ultimately responsible for whatever does or doesn't happen, he's not alone. He doesn't reach these conclusions or decisions on his own. There has been a tendency to blame the Israelis. Well, the Israelis had an agenda to drag us into a major war so that we would destroy Iran for them. Gosh, what a shock! Are you going to believe whatever they tell you? Only if you're very stupid. So, I think that probably President Trump believed some of it, but I think he turned to his inner circle, and I think he turned to his Secretary of War. He turned to the Director of the CIA. He turned to the senior military advisor to the President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Keane. There are others he probably consulted, but those are the ones that I would think he would talk to. They must have said something about it. They must have expressed an opinion. My impression is they said, "Go for it, boss." And that's what's gotten us into this mess.
>> Yeah, and it is a quagmire. You're absolutely right, the Strait of Hormuz was open prior to this war. And now we, I mean, it's it's kind of typical of Trump. He tends to break things, and then if he succeeds in gluing it back together, he expects a pat on the back. But in this case, it seems unlikely that he's going to be able to glue it back together, because right now, as we speak, Iran and Oman are formalizing their plan for how they'll charge for transit through the Strait of Hormuz. So, I don't think toll-free transit is in our future anytime soon.
At the same time, the other issue here, you know, you mentioned Israel and all the blame that's being put on Israel. I mean, I think a lot of that blame is well-deserved, especially when clearly the United States and Israel have different objectives here. I I don't think we should have really had any bad relations with Iran, to be quite honest with you. Israel wants to be the dominant power in the region. They don't want to be checked by Iran or its proxies. They want to topple that regime or create a failed state. Now, that's not going to happen, but Israel insists on continuing the war. They want to see more kinetic action against Iran, but they want that knowing full well that they themselves are running out of missile interceptors. The United States has depleted its, you know, weapons and interceptors as well. So, surely Benjamin Netanyahu and the Knesset knows what's actually going on. So, what are they really trying to do here? Let's say the war begins again, and Iran is, you know, shooting missiles in Israel's direction, they're running out of interceptors. Why, why do, why would they want that? What do you think is happening here?
>> Well, keep in mind that, uh, first of all, the so-called Israel lobby, which consists of something much larger and more powerful than the simple lobby that we talk about, which is a few people and some think tanks in Washington. You're talking about people with billions of dollars.
>> Mhm.
>> And they have been purchasing politicians for 30 plus years. And they have poured a lot of money into politicians, and now they expect the politicians to perform. That's number one. You know, we paid for you, we found you, we put you in office, now you're going to do what we want, and we want the Greater Israel project. Now, the Greater Israel project is seen on a map, supposedly territorial conquest, but it's also part of making Israel the financial center of the world. So, you're talking about international Jewish financial power, which is really behind everything and is driving everything. And it it got control of the British Empire. When the British Empire ceased to be a major power, it got control of us. And right now they control Washington, which is what they want. And the United States Armed Forces are at their beck and call. All you have to do is go back over the last 10 years and look at all the CENTCOM commanders who made the little pilgrimage over to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy and got on the stage there as three stars, sometimes earlier, to pay homage to Israel and declare their readiness to destroy the enemies of mankind, which are equated to the enemies of Israel. So, all of these things are bound up together. So, we have a strong Israel-first problem in the very senior ranks of the U.S. armed forces. Uh...
>> Mhm.
>> And now you mentioned Hagseth. Hagseth, of course, I'm told, has been among the most vocal supporters of all this. And he and apparently, uh, our friend, the CIA director, have both said, "No, no, no, we have to keep bombing, keep bombing." And of course, the Air Force has always taken the position, "If you bomb long enough, you'll win."
>> Mhm.
>> That's never worked.
>> No.
>> It's not an answer, and it it's really not what we want to do. And when people bring up World War II, I always look at them and say, you know, "We firebombed the Japanese. We firebombed the Germans. We killed millions of people that didn't, uh, need to die." In fact, Curtis LeMay, who was the architect of the whole thing, turned to his staff in August of 1945 and said, "Well, we better win this war because, you know, if we don't, we'll all be tried as war criminals." I don't think that's what we want to do anymore.
Now, let's give Donald Trump some credit, okay? He said when he was in Versailles, something was very true.
>> Mhm.
>> "If we don't get this straight opened, we could slide into a global depression." Correct. He is absolutely right. And we have been emptying our own strategic petroleum reserve, pouring it into other countries as well as into our own, and try to keep the price of oil low. We're about to run out of that flexibility over the next few weeks. So, one would think under the circumstances, it would be a tremendous sense of urgency. But he's got a problem. It's Israel. And you said, "Well, why would Israel want to put itself through this, you know, terrible experience?" Well, this is about Israel's survival now. This is a an extinction-level event. If they don't win this war, if Iran is not destroyed, if it is not fragmented, divided, disintegrated, which after all is the same plan that we had for Zelenskyy and Russia. Divide it up, break it up, destroy it, make it, you know, essentially whatever we want it to be. That failed in Ukraine. Now they're trying it in the Middle East. If it doesn't succeed, and the war should end, and we walk, what happens to Israel?
>> They use a nuke?
>> Well, that's a very dangerous thing to do, because they're dealing with other partners, or not partners, but states in the region that have access to nuclear weapons. The Turks have always known that if they needed a nuclear weapon, they could get it from Pakistan. And I think the Pakistanis have been very, very straightforward about saying to the Iranians, "If you need this, we'll provide it." Now, [gasps] I can't prove that, but I rather suspect that's the case. I think the Islamic world is largely united now in its opposition and resistance to Israel. Who are the, who are the people that are standouts or not following in this? Well, the UAE is aligned with Israel and us. They're still trying to murder people in Gaza. Uh, they don't give a damn what happens to people in Gaza, which you would think under normal circumstances, as fellow Arabs and Muslims, they would care. They don't. Saudi Arabia? Well, Saudi Arabia is usually on all sides of all issues. But the bottom line is that none of the Arab states have any real military power. They have financial power. And right now, you've got the Qataris and the Saudis working very hard behind the scenes to assure the Iranians they will get their money. We're not doing that, they are. And remember, we're not talking to them. We're not talking to the Iranians. We exchange notes, but that's it. There's no face-to-face discussion. So, I I don't hold out much hope for an agreement. And that's why in the paper that I wrote, I said there is a way to solve this. It's a military solution: Leave.
>> Yeah.
>> Out. And the sooner we get out, the better, because the longer we're there, the more likely we are to be dragged back in. And that could result in catastrophe.
>> I agree with you. I I agree that leaving is the best option for the United States. I don't think that we're going to get some sort of deal with Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz anytime soon, but maybe we could, you know, later down the line, diplomatically make some sort of deal with them. The, the issue is, if we were to leave, let's say, uh, Israel intends to continue, uh, the Gaza-fication of Lebanon. That's really what's going on in Lebanon. They intend to annex the southern half, if not more. And really the only resistance to the IDF that we've seen is Hezbollah. And, you know, I actually, I would love to get your comment on how Hezbollah has been, you know, conducting their own resistance against Israeli aggression. You know, they have these incredibly cheaply made drones that are really starting to do some damage. But, nonetheless, I mean, Israel seems pretty hell-bent on continuing their operations in Lebanon. Iran has made clear, crystal clear, that any deal would require an end to all warfare, including in Lebanon. What happens if, let's say, the United States pulls out entirely, Lebanon continues getting battered by Israel's bombs and its forces? If If Iran responds and retaliates, retaliates against Israel, would the United States just stand by, or would we just get dragged into this again?
>> Well, that's a $60,000. That's why I think we should disengage and make it abundantly clear to everyone that we're leaving. I think we need to abandon this notion of ever going back into the Gulf, because there's no way we can protect those countries, as being clearly demonstrated. One of the things we need to do globally, not just in the Persian Gulf, is get people to get along with their neighbors. You know, there's the Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians would love to drag us into a war with Russia. They would [clears throat] love to play the Israeli role. We got to get out of this business of the tail wagging the dog. We have too many, too many relationships like that. But there's something else that we need to keep in mind, and that is, who has dominated this region of the world for most of the last 500 years? It's a trick question.
>> I mean...
>> Come on, you know, you know the answer.
>> I'm supposed to say the United States, but I feel like it's not. [clears throat] Okay, go ahead.
>> There are two states over the last 500 years.
>> The U.S. and Israel?
>> Persia...
>> Mhm.
>> ...and Turkey.
>> Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay.
>> Israel's only a little more than 70 years old. Israel is regarded by everyone as a artificial construct. In fact, that's way most people view the statelets in the Persian Gulf. These are artificial constructs, the creatures of British imperialism.
>> Mhm.
>> What is Sykes-Picot? Created these creatures of British imperialism. Everyone in the, everyone in the region, if you talk to the elites, if you can get in to talk to them, they'll all say the same thing: "Sykes-Picot is over." Well, if it's over and we leave, who runs the place? Ankara and Tehran. Now, they've already cooperated against the Kurds. And they're quite willing to cooperate in the future against the Kurds and others in Iraq. Northern Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire. The Turks want Northern Iraq. What's in Northern Iraq? Oil.
>> Mhm.
>> And what happens to Kuwait? What is this thing called Kuwait? Was there a Kuwait 500 years ago? No. It was either under Persian administration or Ottoman administration. What I'm trying to get across is whenever we go anywhere, and we just temporarily distort the normal dynamics of the region. Now, I'm not saying the Turkish armies are going to mobilize and march all over North Africa and all over the Middle East. That's not my point. My point is, they are the natural dominant powers. We are not. We do not live there. Israel is an artificial construct, and for that reason, its founders were much more cautious than the people who are currently running Israel. They saw the boundaries, they understood the limitations of their power, and they did not delude themselves into believing that they could control the United States, its military power, in perpetuity. Now, right now, you and I know that in the United States, the polls have shifted decisively against the Israelis.
>> Mhm.
>> So, why is the Hill paying attention to anything the Israelis want? Is this not a republic? Is this democracy? I guess we've answered that question. It isn't. The people in Washington are not responsive to the American people.