Col Doug Macgregor: Russia will NOT Stand By if Iran's Attacked

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

Israeli Strategy Post-October 7 Attack: The speaker is skeptical that Israel was unaware of the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, citing Israel's high surveillance capacity. The attack has since been used to justify Israel's broader regional ambitions, including maintaining nuclear dominance and military hegemony.

Iran and the U.S.: Iran had prior nuclear agreements with the U.S., which were canceled under President Trump due to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby. The current U.S. stance, heavily influenced by Israeli interests, is pushing toward regime change in Iran.

Israel’s Demand for Regional Domination: The Israeli government, particularly under Netanyahu, seeks to eliminate Iran's regime to ensure long-term safety and regional control. This includes denying Iran nuclear capabilities and influence.

Iran’s Restraint: Iran has repeatedly chosen not to retaliate militarily despite provocations, showing restraint rather than weakness. The speaker emphasizes that Iran has significant military capabilities, including a powerful missile arsenal, but prefers avoiding war—unlike Israel and the U.S., which appear more willing to initiate conflict.

Growing Regional Alliance: There is increasing unity among regional powers (e.g., Egypt, Iran, Turkey) against Israel and the U.S., despite some Gulf states being more aligned with Western interests due to weaker militaries.

Geopolitical Implications: Russia and China are unlikely to stay passive if Iran is attacked. Iran is of strategic importance to Russia for access and security in Central Asia. A U.S.-Israel war on Iran could trigger broader conflict involving these powers.

Consequences of War: Any military action against Iran, especially a large-scale bombing campaign, could spiral into a much larger war, drawing in regional and global powers, potentially leading to U.S. losses across the Middle East.

Lack of U.S. Strategy: The speaker criticizes the lack of strategic thinking in Washington, contrasting it with Russia's more calculated geopolitical approach. The U.S. risks massive loss by ignoring the potential consequences of a broader war.