Col Doug Macgregor: We're in a Run Up to WW3

I think when this war is over and I think it it'll end badly for us and for Israel, Iran will survive. This is a great civilizational state. They're not going to go out of existence. They'll get a different kind of government from the one that they've had. And I think they're on their way to that. They've been on their way to that for at least the last decade. But that government is going to be a nationalist government. the people there will be no less loyal to their country, no less uh confident in their country's future than the the theocrats who have been ruling it since uh well over the last 47 years. So I I I just you know listening to this nonsense that somehow or another if you kill enough mullas everything is going to change and improve is just ridiculous. There's no evidence for it. On the contrary, these bombings are causing large numbers of people to die. They are destroying the lives of millions of people in Iran. When this ends, those people are not going to stand up and say, "Oh, thank you, Mr. Trump. Thank you, Mr. Netanyahu. We're so grateful for the damage that you've done to us. You liberated us. Please come and help us build the future." But all all these people must be on hallucinogenics. That's never going to happen. In fact, I would say that the next government that comes to power will probably do everything in its power to very rapidly build nuclear weapons. What we've done with the with the re Israelis and at the behest of Israel is we've guaranteed the proliferation of nuclear weapons by demonstrating once again that if you want to be secure, if you want to live in a country with that the United States and Israel can't threaten, a country they can't infiltrate, a country they cannot disrupt, and you probably ought to invest in nuclear weapons. Yeah, that's uh one of the things that that I've been concerned about for years is that the claim that we're trying to prevent them from having nuclear weapons and all the maximum pressure and all that crap that we've been doing is pushing them in that direction and it's been a a shock that they haven't done it up to this point. And I think it's a great point that you make that the Ayatollah for religious reasons had a fatwa against it. But with him out of the way and if you take out the theocratic folks and you bring in a secular person, they may not have that prohibition. They may come to the exact calculation that you did and we may move down that road. Uh, one other thing that I want to talk about from that uh, Woodco interview here, which I think is is really illustrates a separate problem that we have, and I'd like you to look at this kind of beyond this this current war that's going on, and that is in our international credibility across the board, not just with negotiations. In this comment here, he's gonna Whit is going to demean the Iranian side for saying that they had the right uh to reprocess nuclear facility, reprocess nuclear capacity for power and research, which they have under the n the NPT, the non-prololiferation treaty. They signed and we signed within that they had the right to do it. Watch what he says in a result of that. >> Just to give you a little bit of a taste for um how these three uh three days of negotiations went. three separate times. Jared and I opened up with uh the Iranian negotiators telling us they had the inalienable right to enrich all their nuclear fuel that they possessed. That's how they opened up. We of course responded that the president feels we have the inalienable right to stop you dead in your tracks. They then went on to say that beyond the inalienable right uh to enrich um that that was going to be their starting point. And Jared and I uh just sort of looked at ourselves flumxed and said, "Well, we're really in for it now." >> Yeah. I I there he's admitted, yeah, that the war is on there. But on the NPT treaty that we signed and ratified, they do have that right. and he just just said, "No, you don't because we say you don't, and we have the right to attack you, which we don't." This sets us up to me as being someone who acknowledges no international treaties, whether it was an executive order, whether it's a a Senate passed treaty, we are going to do whatever we want and we'll deny you no matter what treaties you have signed. What danger does that have for us going forward? Well, the Israeli state has demonstrated that it has the inalienable right to kill or expel millions of Palestinians from their home their homes in the in Gaza and presumably also in the West Bank. That's their sovereign right to execute that. Now I suppose uh they do uh but they're only doing it because we support an assist system in that process. Uh so you know it works both ways. First of all, you're 100% right about the NPT, the non-prololiferation treaty. That's very clear. They do have the right to enrich uranium and there are limits and they've respected those uh contrary to what the Israelis and their agents in the United States continue to insist. But I think it's far more serious to say that there is at least international prohibition against the mass expulsion and killing of people even inside the the borders of your own country. Now, I think uh Israel has ignored that and again they've been able to do so because of us. If you took away our support, if you took away the inexhaustible quantity of weapons and and weapons systems and munitions that we provide to the Israelis and the cover that they receive from us, I doubt seriously that they would be able to do it, but they have. So, I I think perhaps Mr. Whitito should be asked whether or not he thinks the Israelis have the right to do that because I'm absolutely certain that he and Mr. Kusher and virtually everybody else in the inner circle of the president of the United States is totally convinced that they have the right to expel or kill the Palestinians who happen to be within the boundaries of the Israeli state. Uh you can ask him. I I think he'll probably admit to it, but he may not say it that clearly. Uh so it it's it's just this whole discussion is tragic. This whole discussion is pointless and I don't know what you can do about it. I mean we could sit around and talk about it but no one is willing to stand up and take a position. And in the United States people have been propagandized for 30 years at least. Some would say 40 plus to believe that anything the Iranian government says is is a lie. Who believe that the Iranians are bent on conquering the region. There there's no evidence for any of that that the Iranians can't wait to get a nuclear weapon. And by the way, if those Iranians get that nuclear weapon, they're going to use against us here in the United States. There's no evidence for that at all. >> No, there's not. And >> there there is a consequence of this. Gary's showing you right now. This is this is image from Tel Aviv. I I showed you at the at the top of this that the international airport in Thran was under fire, that they were getting pummeled up there, that there was about building where their leaders were had been hit. This is Tel Aviv. he was showing you just a minute ago, Jerusalem. So, there are some real consequences to this right now uh for all sides. I mean, we we're also taking hits in Bahrain especially. Uh some of our troops have already been killed. Who knows what else may have happened so far. A lot of there's a news blackout on that, but these things are a con. This is day four and and there is no evidence that the Iranian side is anywhere near exhausted in their missile supplies or their political will to continue fighting. So, we can imagine there's going to continue to be some of these. Now, one other person who is engaged in this whole process of trying to justify the war is Benjamin Netanyahu. Now, in this piece I'm going to show you here, pay pay careful attention. This is not just that he said we had to launch it now for the reasons that Wickoff was trying to claim, but Netanyahu claims that this was actually Trump's idea from back even before he got inaugurated. They absolutely are clinging to their ability to to build out a nuclear weapons program. And the president, as he said, he wanted a peace deal, gave them every opportunity for peace like they did before Operation Midnight Hammer. And they steadfastly refused >> and or before he was inaugurated the second time. And we met we met in Mara Lago. And the first thing that Donald Trump said to me, he said, you know, we have to prevent Iran from getting nukes. As simple as that. He said that because he saw that as a clear and present danger to the security and well-being of the United States. to have a regime like that so fanatic that it just defines itself of by destroying America exporting revolution, exporting terrorism, exporting the worst Islamist fanaticism that attacks Arabs, attacks Israelis, attacks Americans, attacks everyone, everyone inside. Now, I'm telling you, it pains me to to actually make this statement or ask this rhetorical question. But when you're talking about who is the uh what was the phrase he used, this fanatic regime, and who is it that wants death and destruction since, let's say, in the last I don't know, I'm just going to pick a number out of thin air, the last 14 months, which two nations on earth have attacked more countries than any other two countries on Earth? And uh spoiler alert, it's not Iran. Well, it sounds like a trick question, you know, and uh I don't answer trick questions. I'm sorry. Now, look, we we know that we and the Israelis have been engaged in constantly disrupting and meddling in other people's business, particularly in the Israeli case, in the affairs of their neighbors, and they justify that on all sorts of grounds. The here's here's what's really important. Whenever Mr. internet and Yahoo speaks, whenever his agents in the United States speak, whenever the mainstream media speaks, they are hardpressed to convince everyone in the United States that nothing has changed in Iran in 47 years. And if you insist that things actually have changed and Iran today is very different from what it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, let alone 47 years ago, they said, "Well, that's not enough. That's not it's not a real democracy." Well, there are a lot of people in the United States who have real questions about this thing called real democracy. When we let people vote who are not citizens, when we don't exercise uh any controls whatsoever over election integrity. When we don't seem to value American citizenship. Uh you know, it's hard it's hard to listen to this sort of nonsense. We should be much more concerned about what's happening in this country. And we need to understand something. We should have learned this. I think we actually have more than than we realize. I if you're not intervening in someone else's country and you're not provoking them and you're not threatening them, the probability of anyone in the world using a nuclear weapon against us is about zero because they know there's no there's nothing to be gained by it. And secondly, they know if they try to do something like that, they'll end up as a burned out cinder on the on the highway. we will respond dramatically and decisively. This is crazy. You know, it's [clears throat] why Stalin, who was probably one of the world's greatest criminals, certainly murdered far more people than Hitler ever did. And Stalin said, uh, you know, nuclear weapons are political weapons. They have no military utility. They they destroy everything. So there is no purpose in fighting a war that can only be won with a nuclear weapon. So nuclear weapons are useful for political purpose. It it it guarantees your territorial integrity and you can threaten people that don't have nuclear weapons. [laughter] Stalin was right. And that's what we're doing. We have two nuclear states, Israel and the United States, and we're threatening another state that doesn't have any nuclear weapons. The whole thing is the theater of the absurd. You know, the these these spokesmen have turned the world upside down, and they are insisting that Israel and Jews worldwide will never be safe until Iran is expuned. And by the way, after we finished expuning Iran for them, they'll undoubtedly want us to do the same to Turks or the to the Turka. And then I expect they'll turn us on Pakistan. Now to be fair, Pakistan has been the incubator of Islamist terrorism in these madrasas schools that have been funded lavishly by the Saudis. But I'm not sure I declare war on Pakistan as a result. Uh you know this business of we declare war on on people that we don't need to who who have not necessarily harmed us directly. It's back to Stalin again. You know, his theory of government was kill the citizen before the citizen has a chance to commit a crime against the state. It was prophylactic justice. So, you heard millions of people in the camps and kill them. This is insane. And that's essentially the road that Israel's on. You know, let's kill all of these people, destroy all of these people because they harbor hatred for us or they're opposed to us or they're anti-Semitic or something else. This all needs to stop and we need someone at the helm in the United States who's more balanced and has some sense of uh uh understanding of the rest of the world that we live in beyond our borders and is you know a stoogge for for this kind of propaganda. >> Let let me ask you uh some of the consequences to to going down this absurd uh path that you just described so eloquently and in in that let's let's take a look at a couple of different factors. First of all, let's take a look at the region. Uh, one of the things that has always been one of our strengths is that we have been viewed, especially in the Middle East by a lot of these regimes, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, etc. that we are the power, we are the the the global superpower that can bring stability to the Middle East. It's certainly for them and that they can feel safe with us. But now then, because we have chosen to go to this war alongside of Israel, that prompted them to get hit. Uh so now then they have you know whether you're talking Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait I mean all these countries have been hit and continue to be hit. UAE also they've been they've gotten a lot of shots so far. So we have proven that being our friend does not im make them immune. They have been hit and our physical capacity to defend them with our air defense has shown to be grossly inadequate. What does this do to once this is over? Because right now everybody's focused on the near-term getting the war over. But after this is over, will this cause a recalibration among the leaders of these regions that they how how closely do they want to tie themselves to? >> I predict that uh at the end of this process of this war, we will be effectively swept out of the region. We will be gone. We will lose any footing that we had in the uh Middle East and probably in most of the Muslim world. And it won't stop there. If you're sitting in Korea right now and you look at the way things are developing, you ask yourself, why do we have these Americans inside our country? We've kept them here or they've stayed here for 70 years ostensibly for the purpose of protecting us, but there's no evidence that they can protect anybody in the Gulf uh or anywhere else in the region from Iran. So why would they be able to protect us from North Korea and China for that matter since we insist that we're really there to deter China? But you know the Koreans know the Chinese have no interest in war and they're doing a land office business with South Korea. The Chinese would be very happy if South Korea ultimately absorbed North Korea and then developed Korea in the north to the extent that the South is being developed and then they would have a tremendous trading partner. Nobody in Northeast Asia is interested in a war with anybody. The Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, absolutely off the table. They don't want anything to do with it. So, I think uh right now in Korea, and I would argue also in Japan behind closed doors, people are saying, "Gee, how do we get rid of these Americans? They're they're they're a liability. They're not an asset." Not just in the in the Middle East, but also there. We're fighting against these things. We think that by bullying and threatening and destroying that somehow or another we're winning. We're losing. This is not this is not something to win. We're losing our position in the world. We're losing strategically. It's not doing us any good at all. And President Trump can say whatever he likes from the Oval Office. It's not going to change this. And I think Americans unfortunately are don't understand it. And as these things develop in the aftermath of this catastrophe, we're going to see exactly what I described. the rest of the world is going to say, you know, very politely, we really think you ought to leave. >> Yeah. >> One last comment. This is very important for your audience. >> In 1919, at the end of the Versailles conference, a delegation from Syria, remember Syria was this newly formed state that was in supposed to be a protectorate under the French, right? And the delegation from Syria approached us and then ultimately approached uh the the great powers Wilson, Clemens. So Lloyd George and said, "Would the United States be willing to come and and be in charge of our protectorate? We have confidence in the Americans. They will help us build an effective democratic state." Think about that. That was 1919. Can you imagine anyone anyone in the Islamic world today or for that matter almost anywhere else in the global south showing up in Washington and saying would you consider coming and helping us build this society and build an effective liberal democratic state? I don't think so. >> Yeah. Then that's that's I mean that's so that those are some of the the medium and longer term problems. But let's look at the at the the current problems here with the straight of hormones being effectively blocked so far. It hadn't been totally blocked, not hard, but it's got a soft block on it right now. We don't know how long that's going to last. Uh but it's already starting to cause some problems here. And how I'd like you to talk a little bit about the potential economic problems that this war could cause for the United States if this goes on. And here's just a couple of indicators. This is as of just an hour or so ago. Uh the price of oil has continued to now creep up. It's gone up 11% since uh since the war began. It's not a huge, you know, it's not exactly up to $100, $150 a barrel, but it's creeping up there because people are getting more nervous. Uh also, the Dow uh is is down. I think earlier today anyway, it was down by 900 points as people are starting to get markets are getting nervous at where this is going. Uh, and and that's that's just where it is right now because you talk about Fox News and really most of the the media I've seen out there, they're they're almost on victory laps already and popping champagne corks and everything else saying that they're they're winning here. But if this starts going like physically, you can't hide it anymore. It starts going south. What concerns are you about the economic impact to the West? Well, let's stop and understand that you can't separate the financial economic impact from the larger strategic impact on the United States, too. Japan uh buys 72% of its oil uh from the Persian Gulf region. In other words, 72% of Japan's oil comes from the Persian Gulf. 65% of South Korea's oil comes from the Persian Gulf. 50% of India's oil is from the Persian Gulf. 50% of China's oil is from the Persian Gulf. Now, Europe only depends for 18% of its oil from the Gulf. And of course, we 2%. Now, what has the United States done by unilaterally, not unilaterally, but certainly at the behest of Israel, done by taking on Iran and essentially making it inevitable that the Gulf traffic would be shut down? Well, what have we done to our supposed friends and allies? What about Japan? What about South Korea? India is not an enemy. It's a neutral state, but it's not an enemy. So those are three states that are the cornerstone of the global economy and we've both sent them into a tail spin. You know, this is going to cost people in those countries horrendous amounts of money. Are they going to be grateful to us for the war that we started and how it ends? I I don't think so. And of course, foolish people are saying, "Well, we're just taking China off the board now. They are they're going to suffer." And that's part of the benefit of going to war with Iran. Well, I I don't think so. First of all, the Chinese have already turned to the Russians, as have the Indians, as have the South Koreans and the Japanese. And the Russians are doing everything in their power to make up for these shortages. By the way, this is a landslide in terms of wealth and power for the Russians. And I think we were interested for some time and somehow or another punishing the Russians for doing what they've done in Ukraine. Well, this certainly isn't the way to that. I don't think anybody in this administration has sat down and carefully scrutinized the consequences of any of their actions. This started with the tariffs. We tariffed everybody. We've never recovered. Now, we're doing this not just to Iran. We're not simply harming Iran. We're harming the substantial backbone of the world economy and people that are are supposedly our friends and allies. None of this makes any sense. Now, where is this going? We're going to be north of $100 a barrel. I suspect it's inevitable. I don't see how we avoid it. And that's understandable because the various insurance firms have already told the tankers, "If you go through the straits, we can't uh insure you. We're there's no certainty you're going to be able to get through." Thus far, the Iranians have let Chinese tankers through. So, I suppose the next step in this is for President Trump to announce that we're going to halt and board Chinese tankers headed to China with oil. Uh, we'll see what happens at that point. Other words, how far do you push this, Dan, until you really get the third world war? Right now, we are in kind of a runup to the third world war. I would call it a low inensity third world war. But if we push this envelope much further, we'll get the third world war and we'll regret the hell out of starting it.

** NEW MERCH ** Jackets & Sweatshirts, Thermo Mugs!! Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store https://www.etsy.com/shop/DanielDavisDeepDive?ref=seller-platform-mcnav Col Doug Macgregor argues that some political voices claim Israel and Jews worldwide will never be safe unless Iran is eliminated. He warns that this logic could lead to an endless series of wars—first Iran, then possibly Turkey, Pakistan, or other Muslim-majority countries. He says this approach resembles the idea of pre-emptive punishment, comparing it to the logic used by Joseph Stalin, who justified killing people before they could threaten the state. According to the speaker, attacking countries because they might be hostile rather than because they directly attacked the U.S. is dangerous and irrational. 2. Critique of U.S. Leadership The speaker argues the United States needs leadership that better understands global realities rather than following propaganda or being overly influenced by allies. He suggests U.S. policy has become unbalanced and driven by fear rather than strategic thinking. He specifically criticizes statements from Donald Trump, saying rhetoric from the White House cannot change the strategic consequences of the war. 3. Damage to U.S. Credibility in the Middle East One of the main arguments is that the war with Iran is damaging America’s reputation as a stabilizing power in the Middle East. Countries that traditionally rely on U.S. security guarantees—such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates—have been attacked despite being U.S. partners. Key point: These attacks demonstrate that being aligned with the U.S. does not protect them from retaliation. U.S. air defense systems have struggled to defend these countries effectively. The speaker predicts that after the war ends, regional leaders may reconsider their relationship with Washington, possibly reducing or ending U.S. military presence in the region. 4. Potential Loss of U.S. Influence Globally The speaker believes the consequences will extend beyond the Middle East. Countries hosting U.S. troops might question whether American forces actually improve their security. For example: South Korea might question why U.S. troops remain if they cannot protect allies elsewhere. Japan might ask similar questions. He argues that many countries in Northeast Asia—Japan, South Korea, and China—are primarily interested in trade and stability, not war. If U.S. forces appear to bring conflict rather than security, governments may start viewing them as liabilities instead of assets. 5. Historical Comparison to 1919 The speaker contrasts today’s situation with the past. After Paris Peace Conference, a delegation from Syria reportedly asked the United States to oversee their protectorate because they trusted Americans to help build a democratic state. The speaker says this illustrates how respected the U.S. once was globally. His point: Today it is almost unimaginable that a country in the developing world would ask the U.S. to help build its political system. 6. Economic Consequences of the War The discussion then shifts to economic impacts, especially oil. The conflict threatens shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil transit routes. Oil dependency from the Persian Gulf: Japan – about 72% of oil South Korea – about 65% India – about 50% China – about 50% Europe – about 18% United States – about 2% The speaker argues that the war hurts the U.S.’s own partners more than it hurts America. 7. Rising Oil Prices and Market Instability Signs of economic impact already appearing: Oil prices have risen about 11% since the war began. Stock markets have dropped sharply. Tanker insurance companies may refuse to cover ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. If oil shipments decline, the speaker predicts prices could exceed $100 per barrel. 8. Strategic Advantage for Russia The speaker argues the war could benefit Russia. Because many countries need alternative energy supplies, they may turn to Russian oil and gas. Countries already moving in that direction include: China India Japan South Korea This could increase Russia’s wealth and geopolitical influence despite Western efforts to weaken it. 9. Risk of Escalation Toward World War Finally, the speaker warns that continued escalation—such as stopping Chinese oil tankers—could trigger direct confrontation between major powers. He describes the current situation as a “low-intensity third world war.” If the conflict continues to expand, he believes it could turn into a full-scale global war. ✅ Overall argument: The speaker believes the war with Iran is strategically misguided. He argues it will weaken U.S. alliances, damage global credibility, disrupt the world economy, strengthen rivals like Russia, and risk escalating into a much larger international conflict.