Apocalypse Now! News with The Fetz (6 March 2026) with John Coleman
John Coleman and Colonel Douglas McGregor dissect a joint U.S.-Israel operation targeting Iran, which they claim killed Ayatollah Khomeini following Charlie Kirk's assassination. Experts analyze the Strait of Hormuz as a global chokepoint where closing it could bankrupt America and trigger World War III involving Russia and China. With 67 Americans dead in Kuwait, Colonel McGregor argues U.S. strategy relies on strategic effects without tactical victories, warning that destroying Iranian society risks entanglement with adversaries while Israel faces internal collapse before Iran prevails through survival. [Automatically generated summary]
You were mocking the kids, but now you're getting hit.
Iranian missiles have your entire skyline lit.
And you cried victim and say you didn't start this.
But the whole world seems that your nights are detarded.
Now you feel terrible like the palace penians.
How does it feel to have bombs drop on your civilian skill?
You could avoid it all this if you wanted to.
But humanity never expected good behavior from you too.
Boom, television.
This is what you get for all your evil deeds.
Boom, television.
You put this upon yourself.
It's your time to bleed.
This is what you get for all your evil deeds.
Boom, television.
You put this upon yourself.
It's your time.
Not televised.
But in the dead of night, with no warning, the skies lit up.
The world watched in celebration as the iron dome cracked.
And in that moment, the balance of power began to shift.
This is what you get for all your evil deeds.
Boom, television.
Don't put this upon yourself.
It's your time to bleed.
Boom, television.
Don't produce upon yourself.
It's your time to...
Hello, everyone.
I'm John Coleman from Apocasta Stacey, an Institute for the Humanities and Alternative College and High School here on New Milford, Connecticut, USA.
The purpose of this broadcast is Apocalypse Now, news with the Fets for Saturday, the 7th of March, 2026.
Just one quick announcement concerning the college, and that is to keep an eye out on our staff publication page.
Both myself and Dr. Fisher have lately put out some new material, and that's waiting for your perusal.
Collapse of U.S. Support for Israel00:03:07
Dr. Fetzer's sites will be down below in the description.
And as time and links allow, I will toggle those websites on the screen with the button.
But without further ado, welcome, Dr. Fetzer.
This is this weekend, the beginning of the Paralympics, a time of peace.
And yet here, the world is completely engulfed.
So without further ado, sir, you have the floor.
John, what a week we have had since our last conversation.
Absolutely stunning.
This is all historic.
The geopolitics of the world are going to be different after this.
Let me begin by explaining the timing of the hit on Iran, taking out the Ayatollah.
There were negotiations going on about the Iranian nuclear program.
And really, it's not nuclear weapons.
I mean, that's just a fantasy generated by Netanyahu to promote his agenda.
But was reaching an agreement such that the negotiator from Oman was announcing they were on the verge of a deal.
Well, Bibi couldn't allow there to be a deal.
If there's a deal, then he loses his leverage, his mythical justification for going after Iran.
Not only that, but there's been a collapse of support for Israel in the United States.
It's been cumulative, but it's taken on a greater urgency.
Cumulative since the beginning of the genocide, which has now endured two and a half years, accelerated greatly by the shooting of Charlie Kirk, where even though I'm convinced it was a staged event, the world believes that Israel took him out.
And for good reasons, because Charlie was talking about, he didn't believe the October 7th story.
He'd been to the wall.
He thought it was preposterous that he could no longer support the Geno side and that he couldn't abide Bibi Nanyahoo.
And he told Candice, he told Tucker, he told Clayton, he confided in them.
So the reason for taking him out, Rawl, was for the world to ponder.
And discussion about Israel and its role in American politics just skyrocketed from that point on.
So here I think B.M.
Felt he was at the edge of the point of no return, with collapse of support for Israel on the one hand, and with the prospect of an actual negotiated solution over the Iranian issue, when his real occupation had been ballistic missiles, because they were so heavy on Israel in the 12-day war that it was Israel that had to.
plead for a ceasefire.
Senate Republicans Vote Down Iran War00:07:02
And they got it.
And what did they do?
They simply used it as an opportunity to rearm.
Iran is not going to be played again.
So what do we have here?
Glenn Greenwald in our opening slide that he wrote for Brazil's largest newspaper.
For decades in the United States, absolute support for Israel was an unbreakable bipartisan consensus.
The only argument about Israel in U.S. political elections has been where one candidate, most are more pro-Israel than the other.
That the U.S. was always finance armed diplomatically, but to even deploy its own soldiers to fight for Israel was even a firm by Barack Obama, who fed Israel weapons of bomb Gaza in 2014,
then agreed in 2016 to give Israel 38 billion over 10 years, as well as Joe Biden and Donald Trump, who financed an armed Israel destruction of Gaza following the October 7th attack.
Last year, Trump joined Israel in bombing Iran.
And now, Trump with Israel has launched a highly dangerous regional war against Iran that both the New York Times and the Financial Times are accurately reporting as a war for Israel.
Already, both countries are relentlessly bombing Tehran and other cities, killing at least hundreds of the same Iranian civilians they claim to want to liberate.
The U.S. is on its way to doing to Iran what it did to Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya, not liberating those countries, but destroying them.
For more than 50 years, prominent Americans were petrified to criticize Israel or to question America's devotion thereto because of guaranteed reputational destruction.
Powerful pro-Israel group would instantly accuse anyone questioning Israel of anti-Semitism, and it worked.
But all that has changed over the last couple of years, especially among younger Americans.
They have, for the first time, seen the true face of Israel and U.S. devotion thereto.
They hate what they see, and support for Israel in the United States has now collapsed.
Every demographic group, save for conservatives over 50, has now turned against Israel.
That once unthinkable shift is reflected by the vehement opposition to U.S. support for Israel's wars from leading American conservatives, including Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, and before he was assassinated, Charlie Kirk.
So extreme is this collapse.
The most recent Gallup poll, as reported by the Financial Times, shows more Americans sympathize with Palestinians and Israelis for the first time since Gallup began tracking the sentiment.
Now, remember, every demographic group except for conservatives over 50 has now turned against Israel.
Well, what's the Senate controlled by?
Conservatives over 50.
Senate Republicans have voted down legislation to halt the Iran war.
Actually, it was legislation to debate whether we should have the war.
This, in my opinion, is catastrophic for the Republicans.
It's now been paralleled by the House of Representatives, similar virtually party-line votes that I believe are going to lead to the decimation of the GOP in the midterms for reasons having to do with the way the war has developed and its sequel, Washington.
Senate Republicans, again, I say conservatives over 50, voted down an effort Wednesday taught President Donald Trump war against Iran, demonstrating early support for a conflict that's rapidly spread across the Middle East with no clear U.S. exit strategy.
The legislation known as a war powers resolution failed on a 47 to 53 vote tally.
One Republican Rand Paul voted with the Democrats and one Democrat Fetterman voted with the Republicans.
It would have given lawmakers an opportunity to demand congressional approval before any further attacks were carried out.
The vote forced them to take a stand on a war shaping the fate of U.S. military members, countless other lives, and the future of the region, underscoring the gravity of the moment.
Democrat senators filled the Senate chambers and sat at their desks as the voting got underway.
Typically, senators stepped into the chamber to cast their vote and then depart.
Today, every senator, every single one, will pick a side, said Senate Democrat leader Chuck Schumer prior to the vote.
Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East or stand with Donald Trump and Big Hegset as they bumble us headfirst into another war?
Senator John Barrasso, second in the Senate Republican leadership, said during the debate, GOB senators would send a message that Democrats are wrong for forcing a vote on the war powers resolution.
Democrats would rather obstruct Donald Trump than obliterate Iran's national nuclear program, as though there were any real threat, since Iran has forever denied having any desire to acquire nuclear weapons, that's enrichment program is only for the sake of peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Trump Ruled Deploying Troops00:02:45
And would they agreed to and abided by the previous joint comprehensive plan of action that brought in international inspectors to ensure they were adhering to the agreements, which they were doing scrupulously.
So there's no evidence, no reason whatsoever to believe there's any threat from an Iranian nuclear program.
After launching a joint attack with Israel against Iran on Saturday, Trump scrambled to win support for a conflict that Americans of all political persuasions were already wary of entering.
Trump administration officials were frequent presence on Capitol Hill this week, seeking to reassure lawmakers they have the situation under control.
Defense Secretary Pete Tegson said Wednesday the war could extend eight weeks, a longer timeframe than previously voted by the Trump admin.
He also acknowledged that Iran is still able to carry out missile attacks, even as the U.S. tries to control the country's airspace.
U.S. service members remain in harm's way.
And we must be clear-eyed that the risk is still high, said General Dan Kane, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same news conference.
Let me add, General Kane had, true to his duty, gone to the Oval Office and told Donald Trump in the presence of Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio and his son-in-law Jared Kushner that the military could not conduct this operation because we'd already given half of our missiles to Ukraine and the other half to Israel.
Trump ignored his report and ordered him to go ahead, nonetheless.
Six U.S. military members were killed over the weekend in a drone strike in Kuwait, but that's hardly the beginning.
Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa acknowledged the human cost of the war in her floor speech.
One of the soldiers killed Sunday was from Iowa, and a National Guard unit from her state was attacked in Syria in December, resulting in the death of two other soldiers.
But now is our opportunity to bring an end to the decades of chaos, said Ernst, who served as an officer in the Iowa National Guard for two decades.
Ayatollah's Death Confirmed00:08:14
The sooner the better.
Trump has not ruled out deploying U.S. ground troops.
He said he hoped to end the bombing campaign within a few weeks, but his goal for the war shifted from regime change to stopping Iran from developing nuclear capabilities to crippling its Navy and missile programs.
Meanwhile, now, the day of the attack, Net Yahoo.
This morning, we destroyed the compound of the tyrant Khamenei.
Many of the signs showing he's no longer alive, stopping Shai from confirming his death.
Here's a report from news on the occasion.
Breaking news that's coming into us from Fox.
I'm going to have our producers behind the scenes change the banner.
But right now, this has just been confirmed, Brian, over the air that Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah, has been killed in those strikes.
Fox is now reporting that on screen.
They're having their reporter speaking on it now as he's live in Tel Aviv.
But once again, folks, for just joining us here at home, we've been waiting for this information.
We had gotten some insight before from our partners there at Reuters.
They were able to talk to us to let us know that Netanyahu, the prime minister, as he just had statements a little while ago, said that there were signs that the prime minister, that the Ayatollah was no longer anymore.
This is what he said, according to Aisha Hassani with Fox News.
This morning, we have destroyed the compound of the tyrant Khomeini.
Many of the signs showing that he is no longer.
That is exactly what he said in his speech.
We have just been informed by Fox News, confirming that Iran's supreme leader, Khomeini, has now been killed in these strikes.
And so, as we're getting this breaking news, and we still have Brian on the line here, Brian, I'm going to have you jump in here once again as we're talking about this.
This is the moment that we've been waiting to hear.
We didn't have confirmation.
It was suspected.
It was put out there on the internet.
I had told folks earlier today, we won't be confirming anything until we have it from our trusted sources.
But a huge moment to see that Khomeini has now been pronounced dead.
Yes.
And I would guess that he is not the only one.
He has a son who's very powerful.
He may have been killed as well.
We'll wait for confirmation on that and much of the leadership.
There was a bifurcation of efforts here, Christina.
The Israelis were moving in for a decapitation strike, cleaning out the leadership of the country.
The American targets were different.
And so the Israelis have exacted the ultimate punishment to the Iranian leadership.
Now, what happens after this is what's going to be very interesting.
The revolutionary guard there, the military, very oppressive people domestically, they have a choice to make.
There's now a power vacuum, potentially, if it's not only Khomeini who's gone, but the leadership, to do exactly what Donald Trump asked them to do, which is lay down your arms and you'll get what he called immunity so that the people of Iran may rise up and form a new government.
But this strike against the leadership didn't just kill the Ayatollah.
It probably killed many other people in the leadership.
And so there you have it.
That's from Bill Melusian.
He's citing Trey Yanks, who is now reporting with Fox News on this newest information that saying a senior Israeli official is the one who confirmed to our colleagues that Iran's supreme leader is now dead.
And so we're watching all of this again unfold in real time alongside with you.
And so it was the Iranian supreme leader who was killed in these strikes as a part of this massive joint military operation between the United States and Israel.
Israel's ambassador told this also to officials in Washington, D.C. Other officials are now confirming to different media outlets all around the United States that this is true.
The 86-year-old Khomeini led Iran for 35 years, making him one of the world's longest serving authoritarian rulers.
His death, though, is a massive blow to the regime and could accelerate, as we've been speaking with here with Brian, on its collapse, which the United States and Israeli forces have staged as a goal of this operation.
The killing is going to continue to set off a succession crisis with no clear answer, as Brian was just discussing.
I do want to note that under Iran's constitution, a council of clerks is meant to select a new leader, supreme leader.
But Israel's strikes have also targeted senior Islamic revolutionary guards as the IRGC that we've been speaking about.
They're commanders and political leaders as well, leaving the regime's chain of command and disarray at this moment.
And so that's the latest breaking news just coming into our newsroom.
Fox News now reporting that Iran's supreme leader, Khomeini, has now been killed in these strikes.
And so for folks who are just now joining us, we're going to continue to give you these updates and some of the fallout that has been happening in the aftermath.
This just end from the Associated Press talking about what's happening regionally there.
What the Trump administration seems not to have understood is the role of the supreme leader within the context of Islam.
Here's a second most highly regarded figure within the Muslim community.
And taking him out has had the effect of solidifying the population of Iran behind his successor and the nation itself.
Shia Islam is a religion devoted to martyrs.
So the Ayatollah, and I understand he knew the threat and was willing to run the risk, was willing to become a martyr for the sake of the nation.
And contrary to the idea of generating disarray, Iran had already mapped all this out.
Yes, four of his highest military commanders were also killed with him, but each of them has a successor, and each of them has a successor.
And Iran long since decentralized and distributed its retaliatory capacity so that a decapitation strike of the kind that occurred, which they anticipated would take place, could not undermine their ability to respond.
Now, you have to understand the geography of the region to get an appreciation for this situation from a military point of view.
And here, we have a segment of a lecture by a Chinese professor that is completely brilliant, completely brilliant.
And once you watch what he has to say, you'll get a much better understanding of the situation in the Middle East and why Iran has tremendous advantages from a military point of view that neither Donald Trump nor his political advisors seem to appreciate at all.
If you want to kill the Pope, the Catholics would be really angry at you and they would want to kill you.
So now you have a Shia who will probably eventually arise, creating a revolution in Buran.
Okay, so I think Buran will be the first to fall.
Dubai will probably go bankrupt.
GCC's Geographical Vulnerability00:14:43
But in the long term, we can expect the entire GCC area, including Saudi Arabia, to eventually collapse.
And this is something we'll use game theory to understand.
All right, let's continue.
So we will know how this war develops just based on geography.
So this is a map.
And this map, even if you don't really know the war, even if you don't know the participants, even if you don't know the weaponry, this map will tell you exactly how this war will progress.
All right, so some certain things to keep in mind about this map.
This is what we call this area, okay?
Really small, but it's 33 kilometers wide, okay?
People can swim across it.
It's really, really narrow, okay?
This small area, guys, it's called the Strait of Humus.
All right?
And it's important because it's really the center of the world.
This one area is the nexus, the pivot of the world.
Let me explain why.
First of all, from the GCC, you have 20% of all the world's oil flowing through this narrow strait.
Where does it go, guys?
It goes to Asia, India, Pakistan, South Korea, China, Japan.
India depends on 60% of its oil from this area.
China depends on 40%.
Japan, 75%.
Prime Minister Takeichi of Japan has said that, listen, if the Shira Humus closes, we're going to have oil in about eight, nine months.
The entire Japanese economy would collapse in eight, nine months if the Shirkhumus were to close.
And guess what?
The Iranians have closed the Shirafumus.
Okay?
So we can expect that the entire global economy will suffer greatly over the next few months.
All right, so that's point number one.
Point number two is, okay, so the GCE sends oil across the Shirkhamus, and what do they get back in return?
Food, guys.
All right, so people don't appreciate the GCC, but it is really the linchpin of the American Empire.
Because what is the American Empire?
The American Empire is the petrol dollar.
The idea of the petrol dollar is this.
The US dollar is worth nothing.
It's only valuable when people want it.
But the GCE says that if you want oil from us, you have to pay us in US dollars.
Then that is the basis of the value of the US dollar.
So, if the GCC collapses, the American economy and the American Empire both collapse at the same time.
The problem, though, is the GCC is an artificial construct of empire.
It does not exist naturally.
Why?
Because that's no food, that's no water.
Okay, guys?
No food, no water.
So these cities are able to grow in the millions because of all these petrol dollars flowing in.
If you close off the shirt of Humus, there's no food coming in.
Right?
They're all going to starve.
How much food does the GCD get from overseas?
80%.
80% of all the food it consumes comes from overseas, that it imports.
It doesn't grow by itself, it imports.
All right?
So the Shira Humus is really key.
And again, the Iranians will close it in order to strangle the global economy and therefore bankrupt the American empire.
All right?
Second thing you will notice is these mountains.
These mountains is what we call Iran.
This is Iran.
This is GCC.
Okay, this is not a fair matchup, right?
Because these are mountains.
And what can you do in mountains?
Well, you can hide rocket bases.
You can hide drone bases.
You can hide missiles.
And that's the entire Iranian offensive strategy.
From here, they can hide missiles and drones from which to attack the GCC.
And what are they attacking?
They're attacking three things, right?
They're attacking American military bases, American military bases.
That's number one.
Is it possible for the Americans to defend against these hacks?
The answer is no!
It's not.
It's a silly thing in the world.
You have all these bases in the Middle East, but you cannot defend them against the Iranians.
That's kind of strange.
That's number one.
Number two is oil and energy.
How hard is it to blow up an oil field with a drone?
Not hard at all.
Can you defend these oil fields?
No, you cannot.
All right?
Number three, and it's most important, is water.
You guys don't know this, but the GCC has little access to fresh water.
So the only way that it can produce water is what we call desalination plants.
These factories that take salt water and then through electrochemical process turn it into fresh water for the population to use.
60% of the water supply in the SGC comes from desalination plants.
60%.
Is it hard to blow up desalination plants using a drone?
The answer is it's very easy.
You understand?
So you have this absurd situation where Iran is a mountain fortress where it can hide its offensive capacity and the GCC is just this desert, this flat desert, and it is exposed to attack and there's nothing it can do about it.
So at any point in this war, the Iranians can choose to just destroy the entire GCC and there's nothing that anyone can do about it.
But Iran also has a weakness.
And this is fundamental.
So Iran also has a water problem.
So for the longest time, they suffered a drought issue.
Just climate change.
And so what the plan of the Israelis and Americans is, is to destroy the water supply of the Iranians.
Because the fortress, it is a mountain fortress, but it can also be a mountain prison as well, where people are trapped inside with no access to water.
So what we're going to see right now, we're already seeing attacks on civilian infrastructure, hospitals.
In the future, you'll see attacks on water supply, on dams, on reservoirs, on power plants.
point, the idea is to make Iran so inhabitable that the people will have to rebel against the people or there'll be a refugee crisis in Iraq.
Okay?
So as you can see from this map, this war, it is the end of the world.
Both sides have the potential to destroy each other.
It's really a question of how far do they want to go?
We can also say this is almost a game of chicken.
We can blow each other up.
How far do you want to go?
And the problem is this.
The problem is that the Iranians are Shia, which believes in martyrdom.
And you've killed their religious leader, Da'ato Khamenei.
So they're willing to go very, very far.
The GCC treaties are Muslim, but they're materialistic.
They love money.
And also, most of the population are expatriates, foreigners.
90% of Dubai are foreigners.
Guess what's going to happen if they suffer?
They're all going to run away.
So this is not a fear matchup.
The big question that people have is, first of all, are the Americans going to use ground troops?
Because the only way that you can defeat Iran is by using ground troops.
That's a big question we will look at in the next few weeks.
Will America send its army, half a million, two million soldiers, to topple the government?
That's question number one.
Question number two, nuclear weapons.
If you lose a war, would you choose to use nuclear weapons?
That's another big question that we have.
Another big question that we have is who gets involved?
Because this situation is so dire that Europe, specifically Germany, France, and Britain are talking about entering this war.
And guess what?
If that happens, it is possible that Russia and China will also enter this war on the side of the Iranians.
This is World War III, okay?
Because of the importance of the Shikh moves, because of the importance of the Middle East.
Everyone has to get involved at some point.
And we're going to use scheme theory to really try to understand what's happening on the ground and where this could lead us.
You're good.
By the way, if any generous donors want to give a couple of these giant digital $10,000 screens to Apakastastasis, we will happily take those off your hand.
John, what he said when he mentioned Roth the Bad about the Pope, see, assassinating the Ayatollah has the same effect in the Shia community as assassinating the Pope would in the Catholic community or assassinating the Archbishop Canterbury in the Anglican Communion.
This was a horrific act.
And it was not one that was going to dispirit the people.
It was going to resolve them to revenge the death of the supreme leader.
And as he said, you know, and he used that phrase, GCC, that's the Gulf Coast community.
Okay, that's the Gulf Coast Nation, United Emirates, Kuwait, all this, you know, Bahrain.
They're very materialistic.
They're Muslim, but they like money.
The Shia couldn't care less.
The Shia are absolutely resolved.
And what you saw there was in terms of terrain, it's just no contest.
You got the dominant mountain fortress, and then you got these targets.
You got these bases.
You got these oil refineries.
They're in defense of home.
So Donald Trump doesn't understand any of this.
Nothing even as elementary as here.
And I got to say, this Chinese guy is brilliant.
That's absolutely wonderful.
And it has other parts.
I just want to focus on the key to understand the military situation in terms of its geography.
Now, John, we've had the action going on, but just happened yesterday.
We had an attack in Kuwait that killed 67 American troops.
And here you have a very thoughtful dissection of what that means for the war and its future.
Please go for it.
67.
67 United States military personnel killed in Iran's strike on Ali al-Salem Air Base in Kuwait.
Dozens more wounded.
American service members, men and women who went to work on a base in Kuwait as part of an operation their country launched, are dead on Kuwaiti soil this morning in the largest single loss of American military life in combat since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm not going to tell you that number quickly and move past it.
67 Americans are dead.
That is the fact that sits at the center of everything else, and everything else has to be understood in relation to it.
Not as a data point in a strategic analysis, not as a variable in a geopolitical equation, as 67 people who will not come home, as 67 families who are going to receive a visit from a uniformed officer today that will divide their lives permanently into before and after, as 67 names that will eventually be read aloud somewhere in some ceremony by someone who will struggle to get through all of them.
67.
Now let me tell you what those 67 deaths mean for the war, for American politics, for the Gulf, and for the world.
Because understanding what they mean is the only honest way to honor the weight of that number.
Ali al-Salem is not a remote outpost.
It is one of the most significant American air bases in the Middle East, the base from which American combat aircraft launched into Iraq in 2003, the base that hosts the pre-positioned equipment and personnel that represent American ground power in the Northern Gulf.
It is a major installation, heavily defended, inside a country that has hosted American forces for 30 years under the logic of mutual protection.
Iran launched one of its strongest attacks on record against that base this morning.
Not a probe.
Not a harassment strike designed to keep American heads down and complicate sortie scheduling.
One of the strongest attacks.
A strike calibrated for mass effect.
A strike designed not just to damage infrastructure or degrade capability, but to kill.
To produce a number, a body count, that would do what infrastructure strikes and radar kills and base suppression cannot do by themselves.
67 Dead: Reckoning Demanded00:07:51
Force a reckoning inside the American political system.
Understand the calculation Iran made in authorizing a strike of this scale against a defended American military installation with the explicit intent of producing mass casualties.
Iran's strategic theory of this conflict has always been about political will, not military capacity.
Iran cannot defeat the American military in the field.
It has never tried to.
It has been trying to make the cost of sustaining American military presence in the Gulf exceed the American political tolerance for that cost.
67 dead is the most direct possible application of that theory.
Because here is what 67 American military deaths do to the American political system in real time.
Congress is not in recess.
Congress is going to be on camera within hours demanding answers, demanding authorization, demanding accountability, demanding a definition of objectives, demanding an exit strategy, demanding the thing that the administration has not publicly provided since the first B-2 took off.
A clear statement of what success looks like and how long it takes to get there.
The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces to hostilities.
It requires congressional authorization for operations extending beyond 60 days.
67 dead American service members in Kuwait makes that legal and political framework impossible to manage quietly.
The American public, which has been watching oil prices rise and receiving fragmentary news about strikes on Gulf infrastructure and radar installations and naval bases, woke up this morning to something different.
They woke up to the number that makes war real in American political consciousness.
Not geopolitical maneuvering, not energy market disruption, not strategic radar systems and command headquarters.
American sons and daughters killed on a base in Kuwait, 67 of them, before breakfast.
That number moves American public opinion in ways that every other development in this conflict has not.
It moves it in two directions, simultaneously.
And the direction it moves in, the direction the American political system chooses in the next 72 hours, is the most consequential decision since the first strike went in.
The first direction is escalation.
Massive, overwhelming, disproportionate American military response to the deliberate killing of 67 American service members.
The targeting menu that has been kept restrained, the menu that held back from direct strikes on Iranian leadership on IRGC command headquarters in Tehran, on the decision makers who authorized the strikes that have been hitting American bases.
That menu comes off the shelf.
The B-52s that are crossing the Atlantic with JASM-ER cruise missiles get new targeting coordinates that are qualitatively different from the military infrastructure targets they were assigned before this morning.
The political restraint that has kept this conflict from becoming a full war on the Iranian state breaks under the weight of 67 flag-draped coffins.
The second direction is pressure for termination.
Congressional members who have been quiet while the operation appeared to be a contained air campaign against nuclear facilities start asking whether this administration has a plan for what comes after 67 dead, whether the objectives that were used to justify the opening strikes are worth what they are now costing, whether the definition of success has kept pace with the reality of a conflict that has struck American bases in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iraq, closed the Strait of Hormuz, shut down Raslaffan and Ras Tenura, pushed oil above $130,
and now produced the largest American combat casualty event in 20 years.
Both pressures will be in the room when the president sits down with his national security team this morning.
The pressure for escalation is louder.
The pressure for termination is more durable.
Iran calculated on the pressure for termination being more durable.
Now look at Kuwait.
Kuwait is a country that exists because America fought a war for it.
In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded, the world condemned it.
The sanctions were imposed.
The ultimatum was delivered.
And when the ultimatum expired, it was American military power and the coalition America built around it that went into Kuwait and drove the Iraqi army out and restored Kuwaiti sovereignty.
Kuwait has hosted American forces ever since as the explicit recognition that its survival as an independent state is bound to American military presence.
That relationship, 30 years old, foundational to Kuwaiti foreign policy, is being tested in the most acute way possible this morning.
Iranian munitions killed 67 American service members on Kuwaiti soil in Kuwait, in the country that America died for in 1991, on the basis that Kuwait hosts as the price and the guarantee of American protection.
The protection failed 67 times over.
The Kuwaiti government is managing a situation that has no clean resolution.
It cannot expel American forces in the middle of an active conflict without being seen as capitulating to Iranian pressure and without removing the military infrastructure that is the only thing standing between Kuwait and Iranian dominance of the northern Gulf.
It cannot continue hosting those forces without its own population asking why Kuwaiti soil is absorbing the consequences of an American war that Kuwait did not choose and cannot exit.
Kuwait's emir received Putin's phone call, like Qatar's emir.
Like the UAE's president, like Bahrain's king, Putin is working a list and working it methodically.
The pitch is the same.
Russia is stable.
Russia is available.
Russia is not fighting wars from your runways.
Russia is not producing body counts on your bases.
The pitch is more compelling this morning than it was yesterday.
Watch Iraq.
Iraq's reaction to 67 American dead on Kuwaiti soil is going to arrive in the specific political language of a country that has been trying to manage the contradiction of American military presence for 20 years.
The Iraqi parliament voted to expel American forces in 2020.
They are still there.
The popular mobilization forces, the Iranian-linked militias that operate inside the Iraqi military structure, have been watching this conflict and waiting for the moment when the political ground in Baghdad shifts far enough to demand American withdrawal without Iraqi government resistance.
67 dead Americans in Kuwait, combined with the strikes on American installations in Iraq, may be that moment.
Not because the Iraqi government wants to expel American forces under fire, but because the political pressure from Iranian-aligned parliamentary blocs from PMF commanders, from the public that is watching its country become a theater of someone else's war.
That pressure may reach a threshold that the Iraqi prime minister cannot contain.
If Iraq asks American forces to leave, formally, officially, with a parliamentary resolution and a government statement, the American military loses its forward operating depth in the theater.
It loses the pre-positioned equipment.
It loses the logistics infrastructure.
It loses the political cover of operating from a sovereign ally's territory.
Iran knows this.
67 dead in Kuwait is the event that makes the Iraqi political ask possible.
And now, the number that sits alongside 67, that has to be spoken in the same breath.
The interceptors are still running low.
The AN FPS-132 radar is still rubble in Qatar.
The Strait of Hormuz is still closed.
Raz Laffan is still dark.
Ras Tenura is still not at full operation.
Oil is above $130.
Goldman Sachs has stopped giving clean ceiling numbers.
B-52s have not yet arrived.
The TAD is still being positioned.
The French bases are open, but the command infrastructure that coordinates them absorbed a strike at Jaffa.
67 Americans died this morning in the gap between the force posture that was sent into this conflict and the force posture that this conflict actually requires.
That gap is the accountability question that Congress is going to ask.
That gap is the strategic assessment that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is delivering to the president this morning.
That gap is the distance between the clean, bounded, decisive campaign that the opening strikes were supposed to represent and the theater-wide conflict that Iran's response has produced.
The campaign plan assumed Iran would absorb the nuclear strikes and manage its retaliation within limits that American defenses could contain.
Iran did not read the plan.
67 names will be read at a ceremony that has not yet been scheduled in a conflict that has not yet been named toward an objective that has not yet been publicly defined.
That is the situation.
Now, what you had there was an update on 67 deaths, and that's only the beginning.
Kurds and Missile Havoc00:15:18
The number is going to grow and grow and grow.
But Iran has been ferocious in its retaliation.
It's already taken out all 27 of those American bases that couldn't defend themselves from the mountain fortress, and they've been raining down ballistic missiles on Tel Aviv and Haifa that have been inflicting massive damage.
And while the American government is claiming that offensive missiles are shooting down 90%, a professor from MIT has just reported based on his study of actual missiles descending on Tel Aviv.
The actual number is only 5%.
19 of 20 are getting through.
And the situation is only going to grow worse.
The question thus becomes, is the American government going to send in ground forces?
Now, frankly, as a former captain in the Marine Corps, the situation is absurd.
We don't have the manpower.
We don't have the numbers.
We wouldn't have the logistics.
We're talking about halfway around the world.
We wouldn't even provide them, be able to provide them with food, and the Iranians are ready.
So here, listen to Colonel McGregor respond to that very question from Clayton Boris in this, our final clip.
What do you think the likelihood is that we're going to see U.S. boots on the ground?
Zero.
Zero.
I mean, you might see some special operations troops mill around the neighborhood.
That's eminently possible.
Although I think we're a little concerned about getting them out once we put them in.
But no, I just don't see any evidence for it.
You've got an army that's simply too small.
It's a fraction of what it was formerly in the 1990s.
The Marines, again, they don't have enough men to make a dent.
You would probably need somewhere in the neighborhood of at least a half a million troops.
And remember that a lot of those are going to have to be part of the sustainment, the support.
And even more important, we're not really organized or trained to deal with the threat because the threat we'd face would be very similar to what the Russians have faced and ultimately mastered in Ukraine.
We're not accustomed to dealing with thousands of drones or unmanned aerial vehicles of all different types and sizes converging to attack us.
And we've never had to deal with these precision guided ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.
So now I think it's almost zero.
Imagine you're trying to bring in ground troops and someone finds out, you know, the Iranians will find out through satellite-based intelligence and their various operatives and their supporters in Moscow and Beijing that we're going to try and concentrate forces somewhere.
It doesn't matter where you put them.
Say they're going to try and come in through Haifa, although that port's in bad shape now.
And then you've got to move them through Israel across Syria to get into northern Iran.
Or you're going to try and penetrate the Straits of Hormuz and land at Bandrabbas.
It's all ridiculous nonsense.
The missiles alone would destroy you, along with all of the unmanned systems.
So I can't imagine that happening.
I'm seeing reports out of Israel that Israel wants boots on the ground, but they can't get any generals to lead it because their assessment probably matches yours, that it's a suicide mission.
Can you respond to what we've been through collectively over the last week from this is a short military operation to four to five days to two to three weeks.
Then it was four to five weeks.
Now we're here in September.
That doesn't bode very well for a successful mission that we thought would take a weekend.
And now that's seven months.
So what do you make of this moving target and what it says about the status of the war that we can't see because of propaganda filters?
Well, I'm seeing some real indicators of success for us.
So much success that President Trump is summoning the aerospace industry heads to meet with him in the White House, presumably to tell them our missiles and munitions have done a great job, right?
Right.
High five.
We're done.
You guys have done such an amazing job.
No, not that we've spent over a trillion dollars and we have, we're out of tomahawk missiles and we have, we don't have patriot systems.
Like that's really what that meeting's about, right?
Well, I would think so about a number of things, but it's not an indicator of imminent success or that we're on the threshold of victory.
This other business, you know, the Israelis just announced the mobilization of 100,000 reservists.
I'm hearing that a lot of those reservists are not going to show up and they've got to man the force that they're trying to ship into Lebanon, where they're meeting again resistance despite enormous bombing.
I just don't see the evidence for success.
And moreover, now I'm hearing from people that are saying, oh, you don't understand, Doug.
The Iranians are running out of ballistic missiles.
They're running out of cruise missiles.
Why do you say that?
Well, they haven't fired as many over the last two days as they did at the beginning.
I said, uh-huh.
Well, obviously, they have to have targets.
What have they got left to shoot at?
They've already destroyed all of our bases.
They've done enormous damage to the infrastructure, command and control, radars, Patriot batteries, FAAD batteries, you name it.
Oh, no, no, you don't understand.
They're running out.
As soon as somebody tells me the enemy's running out, and that's the reason, I tend to remember Ukraine.
Oh, the Russians are running out of ammunition.
They're running out of missiles.
Oh, the Russians are losing.
Iranians are winning.
I don't believe anything, frankly.
I want to look at a different indicator.
And the indicator right now comes in the form of insurance premiums for shipping.
They have risen by 640%.
Just think about that.
We don't have to shut down the Straits of Hormuz right now.
In other words, it doesn't have to be blocked if you're an Iranian.
All you have to do is make sure that the risk that insurers have to take is too high.
And that's what's happened.
We have 3,200 ships sitting to go in and out of the Straits of Hormuz.
Now, if you're a Russian flagged or Chinese-flagged tanker, you're allowed to leave.
You're allowed to come in.
But if you're anybody else, you're going to be stomped.
And right now, nobody wants to insure the ships.
So these effects are profound.
Higher oil and refined product risk premium, higher freight and war risk insurance, tighter financial conditions.
And if ships and premiums stay high, Iran is achieving a strategic effect without having to win tactically.
So what do you need to keep this going?
More drones?
Sure.
Some more drums, occasional missiles.
And who is going to invade you?
Oh, I forgot the Kurds, right?
Only now we've discovered there is no Kurdish army preparing to invade.
We're trying to stand one up, but the Kurds aren't that stupid.
They've been down this road before with us and we betrayed them.
So, you know, I just, I just don't know what the outlook is except to say I agree.
This could go on for many, many more weeks.
I love when people would say to you, Colonel, a colonel who led men into battle for crying out loud and who has sources, deep, deep sources within the United States military more than any of us sitting here on this table or anyone who's like probably watching right now, unless there's some sort of keyboard cowboy that we don't know about.
But to say to you that you're wrong about what Iran's missile capacity is, you've been studying this for decades and their ability to sustain this.
You've laid out many, many times on our show.
So I guess I'll just ask you straight out.
Is there a way that we could actually beat Iran short of a nuclear weapon?
Well, I think the bar is very low for Iran.
All Iran has to do to be victorious, if you will, is survive.
That's it.
That's all they have to do.
Continue to lob missiles, continue to launch drones, strike back if we come close to the country in whatever way they can.
They've managed to maintain command and control.
They've dispersed their forces.
Those forces are surviving.
They seem to have a very large supply of missiles and drones, contrary to what anybody may think.
So all they have to do at this point is survive.
Now, what do we have to do to win?
That's the real question.
And you've listened to all this bombastic nonsense and hyperbole from the president.
We're the greatest.
We have the greatest force in the world.
Okay, fine.
It's the greatest in the world.
What are you trying to do?
Well, regime change really hasn't worked very well, has it?
You managed to kill the supreme leader.
That simply galvanizes the population against you and Shiites worldwide against you.
So I don't think that's helped very much.
They developed a good succession system.
So if anybody is killed or wounded and taken out of action, they have plenty of people to step up and take over.
So if we're not going to regime change this forcibly with bombing by trying to bomb everybody out of office, what are we going to do?
And I think what we're trying to do is destroy Iran and cause the society to disintegrate.
And we're desperate.
We're grasping for straws.
We're trying to get the Kurds to go in to create havoc.
I see evidence that we're milling around and causing trouble in Azerbaijan that may result in a resumption of the war there between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
At the same time, the Turks aren't very happy about our aspirations since the Kurds, of course, want to build a state at their expense and the expense of Iran.
And the Turks and the Irans are already shared, Iranians are already sharing intelligence.
So if our goal is to destroy the country, I don't think we're going to achieve that.
But if we came even close to it, I think we're going to end up dealing with the Chinese and the Russians.
And that's something I thought we wanted to avoid.
But then again, you know, we thought that was the case under Biden.
And it turns out that Biden crossed all of his red lines almost immediately, sending everything he said he wouldn't send and risking everything he said he wouldn't risk.
Looks like Donald Trump wants to do the same thing.
Right.
You know, there is an option for President Trump to save face and say, look, we got the Ayatollah and we got a lot of bad guys.
We're pretty happy.
We're walking out of here.
The problem is that it doesn't seem to be Donald Trump in the driver's seat.
It seems to be President or Prime Minister Netanyahu, that it's Israel's will that we are bending towards.
So if we walked away now, we probably would be led like a dog right back here until I don't know what.
So it has to be disastrous.
And yet we can't really get a true picture of what the Americans are being asked to do, even though we're funding it.
And I notice, because I follow your ex-feed closely, it helps me to cut through the bull.
But you got a lot of turds now who are pushing back on you.
And I didn't see this before because the pro-war faction, the pro-war bots are out.
And I notice you're taking a lot of stuff for telling the truth now.
That tells me something.
I think you're over the target, Colonel.
Yeah.
Well, unfortunately, if you object to waging war with uncertain purpose and unattainable goals, then you're viewed as a traitor.
I mean, that's obviously you don't support what's right and good.
But I think Americans are smarter than Washington thinks.
And I'll be frank.
I don't think this is going to lead anywhere.
I don't think President Trump is going to tow the battleship Missouri into the Persian Gulf and then repaint the name on the Missouri to the USS Trump and hold a surrender ceremony there for the Iranians.
I don't think that's going to occur.
I hope we can get out of this without ending up in a major war with Russia and China without blowing up the entire region.
The entire region is pretty much blown up as it is.
But I think what's going to happen is that over the next several weeks, war fatigue is going to set in.
I think we will take more casualties than we've taken thus far.
And I think President Trump may be in real trouble.
He may not finish his term.
He may end up no longer being president by the time the war ends, however it ends.
So maybe you can give us just a military assessment beyond what you've already said here.
Where do things stand on the Israeli side?
Are they, you know, CNN is not allowed to show us.
Fox News is not allowed to show us.
RT got shut down from showing us what's actually happening inside of Israel, you know, bombing attacks inside of Israel.
What are we, you know, what do we know about their the Iranian capacity at this point?
Are they sitting back?
As Professor Mirandi in Tehran has said this morning, the Iranians are using basically some of their old missiles.
They haven't even really used some of their most advanced stuff yet, and they're sort of sitting back.
Can you help us understand?
And also the American deaths.
We've only heard six Americans have died.
I'm hearing that that number is false.
Maybe you can tell us about the American. killed in action numbers that you're hearing about.
Maybe you just can give us a sense of all of these things.
Well, let's start with Israel.
I think internally, Israel is suffering from considerable unrest.
There are lots of unhappy people in Israel right now.
They've been through quite a lot as a result of starting this war in the aftermath of 7 October.
They've got armed forces with people that are exhausted, they're tired.
At least a million Israelis have left the country and gone elsewhere, and I'm sure more would leave if they were able to do so.
So I think the future for Israel is ominous.
It strikes me that Israel and Iran may well end up in this contest that I would describe as competitive collapse.
In other words, which state falls apart first?
And if I were betting, I would say Iran will not be the first, that it will be Israel internally.
They're already bringing in large numbers of mercenaries to fight, and that's been going on almost from the beginning.
Israel has sustained a lot of damage.
It's probably going to sustain a lot more before this is over.
And I don't know where Mr. Netanyahu is most of the time.
150 Miles of Doubt00:10:17
Everybody keeps asking that question.
He's not exactly very visible these days.
So I think Israel is in trouble.
Let's put it that way.
Now, when we go to the Persian Gulf, we look at the Emirates, we look at Saudi Arabia, but particularly the Emirates, I think we as a nation are finished there because deterrence has failed.
What the Iranians have demonstrated pretty conclusively is to fight wars, you don't really need navies and air forces if you're defending your country.
With missiles and unmanned systems and ground troops, you can wage war for a very, very long time.
We are at the end of a 6,000-mile logistical pipeline.
We've got to replenish everything.
We don't know how many missiles we've fired.
We're not sure about how many enemy missiles we've intercepted.
And when you're in that kind of position, when in doubt, you tend to make things up.
I think we're making a lot up, saying that we're doing a lot better than we are.
But it's impossible to know with any precision.
But the point is, you can bomb lots of people in Iran over a long period of time, but you're not going to bring down that nation and you're not going to bomb its current government out of existence.
So when you look at the map, I tend to rely more heavily on Rebar.
I find that most of their data is pretty good.
And as I look at the charts right now, I'd say the Iranians are continuing to do quite well.
And I don't think that we are pounding them into the dust or pulverizing them out of existence.
And I think that's one of the reasons that we're going to send more troops and more firepower there.
We've got three carrier battle groups that we can surge.
And over the next two weeks, I think they're going to get them ready and bring them over so they can replace the two carrier battle groups that are there now.
So this is going to go on.
And as you pointed out, everybody stopped talking about 48 hours.
Remember, we go back to Witkoff and he said, well, President Trump and I thought they were going to capitulate.
I mean, after all, look at all the firepower we amassed.
Persia has been with us for 2,700 years.
I don't see any evidence that they're about to go away.
I think they'll endure.
I think ultimately, by enduring, they will win.
The question is, what sobers us up?
I think it's going to be economics.
Remember, Japan depends for 72, 73% of its oil on the Persian Gulf.
South Korea depends about 66, 65% of its oil comes out of the Persian Gulf.
China, 50%.
But the Chinese have substantial strategic reserves and they have a new pipeline into Siberia.
So that no doubt helps a great deal.
India's oil, 50% of it comes from the Persian Gulf.
And right now, Indian industries, whether it's ceramics or automobile tires or any number of things, anything that contains petroleum, all of your fertilizers contain elements from petroleum.
Those businesses are being destroyed in India.
And people are beginning to say, now, wait a minute, did President Trump ever consult with any of the nations with which we are aligned or nations that are ultimately friendly to us before he decided to do this?
The answer is no.
Did anybody really present him with a systematic analysis of how likely it was that we would be successful striking Iran from the air?
Or was that simply waved aside based on anecdotal evidence provided by the Israelis that said, oh, this will be over in two days or three days or four days?
We don't know the whole story.
I mean, the truth will come out eventually.
We'll find it out.
But I think most of our assumptions were false.
They were evidence-free, as so much analysis in Washington is.
So I think we're in for the long haul.
And hopefully we don't have any ships that are damaged or sunk.
Hopefully we don't have a carrier that's struck by one of these ballistic missiles.
That would be disastrous.
Because right now, all the bases are basically gone in most of the region.
They're not usable anymore.
Gosh.
I want to ask you just one more question about the idea of escorting ships through the straits of Hormuz, the Strait of Hormuz.
No one has taken us up on that offer.
President Trump said, hey, we'll be the insurer.
The U.S. taxpayer will do that.
Now that insurance rates have skyrocketed.
So the government is saying, okay, we'll do it.
That puts U.S. taxpayers on the hook.
And I assume they would pay for, you know, replacement costs, death. tolls.
I don't know exactly what that means.
You and Colonel Davis both kind of freaked out about that because you're like, you really want to sail near Iran?
You really want to do that?
And no one has why.
Who would do that?
Who would sail towards the country escorted by the country that's bombing that country?
So it doesn't seem like it just seems like bluster, right?
Is that what you think?
Well, I don't know because I think that President Trump frequently is a victim of what we call ready shoot aim.
He says things and then subsequently somebody tells him it's not possible, it won't work or it's non true.
Then he just sort of waves it off.
But this time, I don't think he can wave off some of these remarks.
I can't imagine any admiral in the United States Navy urging us or President Trump to send Navy combatants into the Persian Gulf right now.
They'd be sitting ducks.
That's the easiest thing in the world to hit and sink.
So I think the idea is crazy.
Note that the carrier battle groups, particularly the USS Abraham Lincoln group, has moved as far away as they possibly could without completely sacrificing their ability to contribute to the air campaign.
Because remember, you know, you've got a, most of these fighters are about a 300-mile range.
That means they've got to fly out 150 miles and back 150 miles.
And you're a long way from Iran if you're four or five, 600 miles south of the Persian Gulf.
That means that you've got a lot of refueling going on.
All of these things cost us logistically.
So I just don't see it working.
I don't see it happening.
I think what you'll end up doing maybe is conducting a kind of naval blockade, but that's going to get you into trouble with everybody.
You know, right now, what we see is a pattern of missile volleys and drones based on a specific group of targets that are provided largely as a result of Chinese intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance.
And the satellite-based intelligence is also providing the battle damage assessment.
And so this is a very carefully orchestrated campaign on the part of the Iranians.
These people are not amateurs.
So We, on the other hand, you know, seem to be stumbling.
You know, it reminds me of Lloyd George, who said it at the beginning of World War I, if the politicians stumbled into the war, the generals have certainly stumbled through it.
And I think that's what we did.
We stumbled into this behind the Israelis that hooked us in.
And we're trying to make the best of it.
I'm sure the generals in the Air Force, the admirals in the Navy are doing everything can.
But this is tough.
And in today's attack, you know, the Iranians used one of their Khoram Shahr ballistic missiles with submunitions.
They've done horrific damage to Ben-Gurion Airport, put it out of business.
This was because obviously the Israelis attacked the airport in Tehran.
These people aren't finished.
They're a long, long, long way from being finished.
I think they're going to be standing when Israel's in ruins.
And that's the problem, because when do the Israelis finally step up and say enough is enough?
We're going to use a nuclear weapon and put Iran out of business.
That's really what I worry most about.
I've been hearing from sources pointing out that there are a number of IDF soldiers who've been overheard discussing this.
Use a nuclear weapon.
Just use a nuclear weapon and take out Iran.
So I wouldn't be surprised by that.
Doug, I'll get you out of here on this, which is this idea.
We've been hearing from the Iranian side that they've hit our aircraft carriers.
They've targeted, hit our aircraft carriers.
They've hit some of our Navy ships.
Is that propaganda from the Iranian side?
What are you hearing from military sources?
We can't seem to get any data as to whether or not any of our ships have been hit.
You know, I do have some friends in the Navy.
I'm told that at least one of the DDGs was hit and they did have a fire on board.
But the rest of it, no.
And, you know, the other thing is nobody wants to confirm success because they're afraid that they're going to tell the Iranians that they've hit the right target.
But the truth is that you can't really conceal the effects because they're going to be picked up on satellite intelligence anyway.
But historically, just remember, we always slow roll casualties.
We slow roll losses, or we simply lie.
We lied during the Second World War because the losses were always higher than we expected.
During World War I, they were horrific and people waited months to hear the truth.
So I just don't think that much of what we are hearing is truthful from our side.
And I don't know that the Iranians are telling us everything either, because if you think you got close to a carrier, maybe you say, well, we got close.
So tell them we nicked the carrier or something.
Who knows?
I don't know.
But I don't think we can depend on much integrity in war.
What did Napoleon say?
The first casualty in war is the truth.
Was right.
Absolutely.
Colonel Douglas McGregor, great to see you as always.
Thank you so much.
Where can people read your new substack piece that you just published?
Hot Heavy Insights00:06:00
What is the name of your substack?
Well, I think it's something like McGregor Warrior.
But, you know, you can't get it.
John, we can go back there.
Yeah, you know, go back to me, John.
You can cut it off there, you know, before it gets asked them where can they find out more about you.
Right, sure, thing.
Give me one second here.
So, sure.
Very insightful man.
I listened to him on some other outlets, and he's quite a whip, I must say.
John, he's the best.
He is the best.
Was he up for nomination during the first Trump administration for some Pentacon post, or is that Michael Flynn I'm confusing him with?
Well, Flynn was national security and the first Trump admin, not McGregor.
McGregor would have made a great Secretary of Defense.
Yeah, better than the Fox News guy.
Anyway, go on.
John, you heard Colonel McGregor say he thinks in the end that Iran's going to be standing and Israel gone.
Well, just before we began our conversation, I got the latest report.
And if I may return to my slides, Iranian Republican Guard warns Israeli 24 hours remaining, leave Israel now.
Hal Turner.
A message reportedly from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps issued about 9 a.m. Eastern U.S. time today.
Telling Israelis have 24 hours to leave Israel before the entire country is destroyed.
Below is the original Arabic language posting from social media platform X.
It is instantly strange that the notice is in Arabic and not in Iran's language, which is Farsi, raising the question of authenticity.
Here it is in Arabic.
And there is the general making the delivery.
Here is the translation.
Urgent.
Raining Revolutionary Guard to those who sign the occupied territory, you have only 24 hours ahead of you.
After that, we will turn your land into pieces of hell.
What awaits you after the deadline.
Seize the opportunity now because after the hour is up, we will bomb all the airports.
Not a single plane will take off.
We'll burn all the ships in the ports.
You have no escape route left.
We have shattered your expectations.
Now I'll turn your cities into dust.
Escape routes only now.
Mangurian airport.
Leave immediately before we level the runway to the ground.
Haifa port to Cyprus and Greece.
The ships will go up in flames after the deadline ends.
As should port.
The last rescue ships are debarred now toward the Mediterranean.
23 hours remain.
Seize the opportunity now.
For tomorrow, you'll find no escape from our fires.
And John, maybe this is an Israeli scion and that Net Yahoo is going to use his to justify using nukes on Iran.
But other nations, and to the best of my understanding, that includes North Korea and Pakistan, have assured Israel that if Israel nukes Iran, they will nuke Israel.
So I think there's no exit.
And if this report is right, by the time many read or watch our program of today, Israel may be no more.
Great.
Thank you for this very, very insightful time with yourself, Dr. Fetzer, and these well-curated links.
Dr. Fetzer's two sites, jameshfeetzer.org and Moonrock Books, will be down below, as will the four full clips, of which we saw most of it here, but there are a few minutes chopped out here and there with like Professor Zhiang and so forth.
So that'll be down below.
And stay tuned.
There's so much to digest with what's going on.
And if it's any silver lining from my point of view, the Zionists have shot their bolt in terms of PR.
And indeed, as we mentioned a fortnight ago, I had said, and I think this is borne out by their behavior in battle over the past 20 years.
The Zionists have a very poor army.
The Israeli army is not very good.
It's basically what we would call militia or National Guard.
It's very good spy services.
But the point is, they've burned up all of their PR over the past few years.
Their army is no good.
And the globalists and these United States get distracted very easily with their adventures.
They go hot and heavy into Iraq, hot and heavy into Libya, hot and heavy into Ukraine.
And then they literally almost, well, not literally, they nearly almost forget about it a few months in.
So if Iran can just keep its cool and play the man, as Shakespeare would say, People will weather things, but things may be happening much sooner than that.
So, Dr. Fetzer, indeed, this has been a very insightful time.
And thank you very much for your time this evening.