Col Douglas Macgregor - Attacking IRAN: The GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS

** NEW MERCH ** Jackets & Sweatshirts, Thermo Mugs!!

Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store

Col Douglas Macgregor argues that a potential U.S.–Israeli attack on Iran would be fundamentally different from past strikes. It would not be a limited operation, but a full-scale campaign designed to collapse the Iranian state itself, similar to what the U.S. attempted against Russia via Ukraine—but failed to achieve. This campaign would rely primarily on airpower, with naval forces serving as a visible distraction, and could resemble the massive 1991 Gulf War bombing campaign. However, the U.S. can only sustain such operations for 10 days to two weeks, meaning regime disintegration would have to occur very quickly or the plan fails.

The speaker emphasizes that this would inevitably become a regional war, as neighboring countries—especially Turkey—fear refugee flows and regional destabilization. While Israel is portrayed as indifferent or even welcoming to such chaos, surrounding states and Europe fear the consequences, including mass migration and political instability.

The discussion then pivots to a major overlooked issue: the imminent expiration of the START nuclear arms control treaty with Russia. If it expires, it would be the first time in 40 years that there are no limits on U.S. or Russian nuclear weapons, raising the risk of a new arms race. The speaker criticizes the U.S. for ignoring this existential issue in favor of what he describes as an “Israel First” foreign policy.

The segment highlights growing internal conflict within U.S. conservative circles. While President Trump publicly suggests openness to a deal with Iran, influential allies and media figures are openly lobbying against any diplomacy, arguing that even a perfect deal would be bad because it would extend the life of the Iranian regime. Their stated goal is regime removal, not containment.

The speaker finds this unprecedented and alarming, noting that it openly advocates war and regime change—even if Iran complies—raising constitutional and legal concerns. He argues that this logic assumes Israel can never be secure as long as Iran exists as a state, and that Iran’s destruction would not be the end goal. The next likely target, he claims, would be Turkey, which regional actors already suspect and are quietly preparing for.

Arab governments, especially in the Gulf, are increasingly nervous. Some are denying airspace access, not because they can stop the war, but because their leaders fear domestic unrest and possible overthrow due to public outrage over Gaza and broader regional escalation.

Finally, the speaker questions whether the kind of prolonged military campaign being proposed is even feasible if Iran resists effectively, warning that advocates are underestimating Iran’s ability to sustain fighting and impose serious costs.

Bottom line:

This is not about deterrence or negotiation—it is about regime destruction, with enormous regional and global risks, including nuclear arms escalation, refugee crises, and wider war. The belief that Iran can be dismantled quickly and cleanly is portrayed as dangerously unrealistic.