All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 8, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
26:08
COL. Douglas Macgregor : Can Iran Neutralize Israel’s Defenses?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom.
Today is Wednesday, October 8th, 2025.
My dear friend Colonel Douglas McGregor joins us now.
Colonel, it's a pleasure.
You and I spent the weekend together with some wonderful uh folks, very appreciative of the work that we do in the beautiful city of Dallas, Texas.
And uh it's it was uh it was an enjoyable time, and I thank you for inviting me.
I want to talk to you today about the U.S. uh and Israeli preparation for war against Iran.
But before we do that, is Europe preparing for war against Russia, Colonel McGregor?
I think there are superficial preparations.
The most significant ones, of course, involve the allocation of funds, specifically in Germany, uh, hundreds of millions of uh Euros, ostensibly for the purpose of reinvigorating the defense industry and turning out new weapons and new equipment.
But of course, Judge, that takes a very long time on average to build uh a modern force, an army.
It's usually about 10 years, and Germany's military establishment, particularly its army, is largely in ruins.
So you're looking at a 10-year buildup.
I I don't frankly see that occurring.
I think something well short of that will occur.
But uh the man at char at top, uh Mr. Barce certainly is very bellicose and makes it sound as though Germany wants war.
I don't find any evidence for that with the population at all.
What do you think is the true goal of uh Chancellor Merz, President Macron, God only knows how much longer he's going to be uh in office?
They seem to be changing prime ministers every month.
Uh, and the very unpopular uh British Prime Minister Stormer.
Is this bellicity, and I agree with you, it doesn't seem to be manifested in the populations.
Is this bellicity somehow perceived by them as domestically popular or at least domestically extending their tenures in office?
Uh listen, I think the latter statement hits the nail on the head.
These people want to stay in power.
This is the uh senior class of the globalist school of uh political dominance that was convened years ago by George Soros.
These are his products.
These people are about as popular as the plague.
And their populations, the electorates want to get rid of them.
The Germans are a little slower, but the French are well on the way, and Mr. Starmer is on the hit list as well.
So I'm not sure that I would be too excited about these promises of massive military buildup aimed at Russia.
Uh I think it's all designed to strengthen and reinforce their uh authoritarian rule over the peoples of Western Europe.
Uh this week, Brussels is talking about confiscating 165 billion in Russian state assets in Brussels banks, and somehow using it as collateral for a loan to Ukraine, a loan that of course will never be repaid.
Will the Kremlin view this as an act of war, a theft of that magnitude?
Well, if the Kremlin were to view various things as evidence for uh an act of war, they could have gone to war with us a long time ago.
Uh I think that President Putin from the very beginning has made the determination that what he wants to avoid at all cost is a war with the United States and NATO.
I think the United States is currently led by someone whose speech is reckless and uh often not carefully considered before he opens his mouth.
But uh given some time, he has a habit of backing off from dumb statements.
Uh I think in Europe uh the statements are equally stupid and reckless, but they can't get away from it.
So if you're President Putin and you understand what's been going on, uh your tendency at this point is to hold fire, because your assumption is that things will change.
I think that's true.
I think in Western Europe in particular, things are going to change, and they're not going to change in ways that are going to benefit uh the globalist cause.
And with President Trump, you know, you get on the phone, you call him, you talk to him, and then you get a very different impression from the one that he made publicly.
And we've just had this happen with the Tomahawks.
He went from, oh, yes, I'm going to give the Ukrainians tomahawks, then somebody sat him down and said, Look, this is a weapon system with a 1,500-mile range.
We don't have any control over where these uh missiles will be shot, where they will land, how much does uh damage they'll do, but we know, based upon what we've seen of the Ukrainians that they'll use them against civil populations and uh anything that uh produces anything of value for the people in the country.
So I I you know I think that President Trump has now backed down, backed and said, Look, look, we we want to be sure we know where these tomahawks are going to go, and we're not sure we're gonna let them do whatever they want and so forth.
In western in Western Europe, it's very different.
I'm very concerned about the Germans releasing these tourist missiles to the Ukrainians, because that could be the the proverbial Rubicon and result in our reshniks landing in various places in Germany.
Uh the German population doesn't want that, but this man in charge is determined to do whatever he can to stay in power.
Before we leave this topic, I think this woman is a lunatic, but here's Ursula Vanderleyen earlier today talking about so-called Russian threats to the EU.
Chris number 13.
One incident may be a mistake.
Two incidents are coincidence.
But three, five, ten.
This is a deliberate and targeted gray zone campaign against Europe.
And Europe must respond.
Russia wants to sow division.
It was Italian pilots under NATO's air policing mission that escorted Russian jets from Estonian skies.
Ukrainian experts are sharing frontline expertise to help member states counter drone incursions.
But we must not only react, we must deter.
Now the work has already begun.
We are seeing the biggest surge of defense spending in the history of the Union.
Now we need a precise pan-European plan coordinated very closely with NATO on how to move forward.
Tackling Russia's hybrid war is not only about traditional defense.
It is about software for drones.
It is about spare parts for pipelines, it is about rapid cyber response teams, and it is about public information campaigns to spread awareness.
We either can shy away and watch Russian threats escalate, or we meet them with unity, deterrence, and resolve.
This lady wants to be the commander-in-chief of a European military.
story.
Well, that's not likely to happen.
The so-called drone incursions over Poland, when we picked up the pieces of the drones that were guided into Poland, we discovered that most of them contained Polish and Swedish SIM cards.
So unless the Russians are now purchasing that kind of computer guidance system from Sweden and Poland, which is clearly not the case, uh, this was not a deliberate act by the Russians.
And NATO quickly responded and said uh this is not considered a threat to NATO or an incursion into NATO space.
Uh again, all of these alleged incidents, when you line them up and you look at them very carefully, they don't measure up to what she's trying to create, which is the illusion of a Russian interest in conflict with NATO.
There's no interest at all.
And that's why now Slovakia, uh Hungary, the Czech Republic have leaders that have said, forget it, we have no intention or any interest in going to war with Russia.
And even the Polish president, who has tried to be, at least in rhetorical terms, allied with NATO, has stated no Polish soldiers under any circumstances will cross into Ukraine and fight.
Pointed out that they've already lost 10,000 men fighting for Ukraine inside Ukraine.
And I don't think we should pay too much attention to it.
And I think ultimately Van der Leyen and then the rest of these people will be removed.
If the Russians learn that the Germans are building long-range missiles long enough to reach Moscow, will they destroy those munition plants?
I think the Russians understand that preemptive attacks are always a bad idea.
Bismarck said preemptive strikes or preemptive war is essentially the same as committing suicide out of fear of death.
So I think the answer is no.
I think, on the other hand, if tourist missiles which currently exist are delivered to the Ukrainians, and the Ukrainians are allowed to target whatever they like, which is very dangerous because again, we'll see those tourist missiles land in Moscow.
We'll see those tourist missiles land in St. Petersburg, any number of different places, with the objective of killing Russians and destroying Russian civilian infrastructure.
If that occurs, the Russians will respond.
They will use Oreshnik missiles and other hypersonic missiles to destroy German infrastructure, not civilian, but military.
Colonel moving over to Gaza and the uh Trump Netanyahu, uh Whitkoff, Jared Kushner, uh Tony Blair's so-called peace proposal.
Do you think that Benjamin Netanyahu has any intention whatsoever of removing IDF troops from Gaza?
Frankly, no.
Uh, whatever he does, it will be uh at best a gesture.
And that's why I sent you something that Chris Hedges read on his uh program, which was a leaflet from the IDF, and it made it very clear that the people in Gaza and eventually I think on the West Bank have a choice.
They can either flee or be killed.
This is the campaign of mass murder and expulsion.
That's not going to change.
And in fact, we've seen strikes go into Lebanon and other places since Mr. Netanyahu spoke with President Trump on the phone.
I I don't think President Trump has any real influence over Mr. Netanyahu.
So the short answer is I don't expect anything of real substance or value to come out of these talks.
Well, why should the uh why should Hamas even negotiate with the Israelis?
This is the very same negotiating team the Israelis tried to murder in Doha.
I think the view in uh in Hamas and probably in much of the Middle East is whether you like it or not, you have to give it a shot.
You've got to try.
You've got to talk and see if anything good can come of it.
And I think their expectations are very low.
And I'm sure they're all watching the skies overhead and they're very concerned about their own lives.
But if they refuse to talk, they refuse to meet with the Israelis, then they will be accused of wanting this war to continue into perpetuity.
So I think that's what it boils down to.
You know, right now there are lots of people who want desperately to end this.
I mean, the Egyptians are a good example.
They're talking about bringing additional U.S. forces into the Sinai.
They're hoping that we'll get between the Israelis and them.
Uh, they're worried about what's happening not only in Gaza, but in Lebanon, in Syria.
This whole thing is explosive.
It's a giant tinderbox.
No one knows what will actually bring it off, and then we have Iran looming on the horizon as the next major target for Mr. Netanyahu.
Before I ask you about U.S. military preparation for uh a war in Iran and maybe a war in Venezuela, uh, I want to ask you about President Trump.
You mentioned earlier that he says things differently in public than he says in private.
Well, we all know that.
Um he has publicly told President Prime Minister Netanyahu, I'm not going to let you annex uh the West Bank, even though they have de facto annexed it already.
Uh, Andy has publicly said, uh, now that we have an agreement in principle, stop the bombing.
But Netanyahu is thumbed as nose at both of those public statements.
Is it likely he has contradicted himself in private to Netanyahu, or is it likely Netanyahu knows who's the boss between the two of them?
We have to consider the possibility that what he says in private is different, unfortunately.
And I think he does know who's boss, and the boss is Netanyahu, at least insofar as the events in the Middle East are concerned, President Trump is not in control.
Mr. Netanyahu is in control.
And I don't see any evidence that that's going to change in the short run.
So I think that privately it's eminently possible he says, look, I've got a lot of people who are extremely upset about what's going on and our support for what you're doing.
I have to make these statements in public.
He may well have said that.
And uh Netanyahu may have nodded, uh, we understand completely, and he's going to continue doing what he's doing regardless.
That's a possibility.
But right now, Mr. Netanyahu is in charge.
Let's face it.
That those are the facts.
Colonel, uh, what military preparations is the United States making, of which you are aware for an invasion or to support the Israeli invasion.
I'm sure there's a difference in you can tell us of Iran.
Well, I don't think the Israelis are planning on invading Iran.
Uh that's very unlikely.
Now, will they pre-position what we would call special operators and intelligence uh agents in Iran?
I'm sure they already have.
Although it's probably more difficult now than it was before.
But uh it's still unfortunately surprisingly easy to buy people.
And uh even though you execute them as traitors later on, uh, that still is appealing to too many people.
And I think that's happened in Iran and other countries in the Muslim world.
Now, having said that, we are moving ammunition.
Uh we are moving weapon systems into the region, uh, into the eastern Mediterranean, into the Red Sea, and probably I don't know much about the Indian Ocean.
I can't comment on that, but we know those things have happened.
We know that we have at least two batteries of theater high altitude air defense uh missiles on the ground.
We know that that uh inventory of missiles has been built up since the last uh round for 12 days.
So I think there's a lot of evidence, yes, that uh in terms of people, forces, and ammunition, uh we're getting ready to do something in support of Israel.
I don't think we're prepared to directly strike immediately, but we have to accept the high probability that if things don't go well for Israel, that we will participate.
And that of course opens Pandora's box for all sorts of other things to come out, including the Russians, the Chinese, uh the Pakistanis, and so forth.
If this is another um war like the 12-day one in June, which is aimed at uh decapitation and destruction of um nuclear weaponry, I mean, that will be the stated purpose.
As a practical matter, we all know that Prime Minister Netanyahu knows that the Iranians don't have deliverable nuclear weapons, and his goal is to turn Iran into another Syria.
Okay, my question is a little too long.
What can the Israelis defeat Iran missiles?
Stated differently.
Can Iran neutralize Israeli defenses?
I think we have to assume based on what we saw the last time uh that uh the Iranians can employ their entire arsenal, which they did not do in the past.
That arsenal is quite capable of penetrating Israel's air and missile defense defenses, and I think it can also defeat much of what we have.
Not completely, but substantial penetration, which means $50 billion of damage the last time, perhaps uh 80 to 100 billion dollars worth of damage or more this time.
What the real question is if if we're right about that, and we think that the uh Iranian integrated air defenses are now much better than they were the last time.
They may not be 100% of what the Iranians would like, but they're probably 60 to 70 percent of what the Iranians would like.
You add that to this enormous uh strike arsenal.
Uh How long before the Israelis finally conclude that they cannot achieve what you just outlined?
I think they're still dedicated and devoted, frankly, to this notion that they can decapitate the Iranian regime.
The Iranians have already said fine.
Do your do your worst because we have redundancy.
In other words, we have people lined up to take over in the event that uh some of our leaders or many of our leaders are killed.
What then do you do as an Israeli when you realize everything you've tried has failed?
Do you turn to the use of a nuclear weapon?
That's always been my greatest concern with the Israelis because they can deliver those.
They can deliver them from the sea from their dolphin class submarines that were built for them by the Germans.
And uh they don't have to necessarily fly it in.
They also have missiles, but they'd have to move those much closer, obviously, to deliver them.
Bottom line is we don't know, and and thus far we've seen a lot of evidence that Mr. Netanyahu is going to do whatever the hell Mr. Netanyahu wants to do, Judge.
Our friend uh and colleague Max Blumenthal made some extended and very telling statements about this uh last night.
We'll run a portion of them.
I'll like to know if you agree with this analysis, Chris Cut number 17.
They'll never enjoy security and they'll constantly be at war.
And then finally, and this is one of the other lessons of October 7th, because Israel has been I don't think any of us expected Israel to still be pushing ahead with this genocidal rampage in Gaza two years after.
Israel cannot be at peace for political reasons.
Not just Netanyahu, but just Israel, because it will lose its value to the US as an attack dog in the region.
It will lose its value as a strategic asset to US empire if it's at peace.
Like, oh no, we don't actually want to take out Iran.
We don't actually want to uh, you know, we're not we're not gonna fight Hezbollah.
We have a hudnah.
We're we're not gonna sell you.
We we're not actually going to keep selling weapons.
Actually, our military industry is going to be uh reduced.
Well then uh we'll reduce aid to you, and you don't really matter anymore.
And you're just gonna shrink away into the region.
So Israel for the rest of our lives will be engaged in this kind of war as it expands its secret nuclear facility at Demona outside the purview of the IAEA as it has been doing for the last two months in very aggressive fashion as it ramps up the Samson option.
This is from the Provoked podcast by our friend Uh Scott Horton, who was with us Saturday night in uh Dallas, uh, and uh his colleague Darrell uh Cooper, uh friends of uh of uh both of ours, will the Israelis use nuclear weapons on Iran?
Uh I I can't rule it out.
Uh I'm not going to sit here and say with absolute certainty that they will turn to a nuclear weapon to achieve their aims.
But remember, this also assumes that uh Iran has an impact.
Iran can have a devastating impact on Israel.
And if the Israelis conclude that they can't protect themselves from that, they may well turn to the use of a nuclear weapon.
Now, I I think what he said about Domona is absolutely correct, and I'm sure Scott Horton would agree.
I would back away from some of the assumptions about the utility of Israel as the as the attack dog to us.
I think that's overstated.
Having said that, the other piece of this, and this is something you will appreciate, Judge, is that I do think that they are engaged in an eternal war for perfect security.
Now people say, well, that's ridiculous.
Uh if we if we go back and look at Napoleon Bonaparte and his invasion of Russia, it was essentially a search for perfect security.
Bonaparte did not think he would be safe on the throne of France until he had vanquished all of his potential enemies.
This is, by the way, uh something we we can watch in any number of films about the Italian mafia.
This obsession with security means you've got to destroy everyone and you trust no one around you.
I think that particular mentality is very strong with the Israelis.
And they think it's their God-given right in view of the Holocaust to essentially kill at will and destroy anybody anywhere at any time that they think is a potential threat to Israel.
And that means permanent war.
I think that's much stronger, frankly, in their thinking, than the bit about being uh an attack dog for us.
I've asked you this before.
I know the answer, but I have to ask again, and I'll ask about both countries.
Do Venezuela or Iran propose the slightest slightest threat to the national security of the United States.
No, absolutely not.
But there are people that think very strangely.
Someone sent me uh a note recently and said, look what the Venezuelans did to Lincoln Riley.
Now, I'm sure most of your audience remembers the horrible death and the injury inflicted on that girl.
And this was by a criminal that had been allowed into our country by President Biden and Mr. Maiorcas from Venezuela.
And I said to this person, if you're angry at what has happened, because this person came from Venezuela, you need to direct your anger at Mr. Biden and Mr. Maiorcas, not at Venezuela.
Well, they deliberately released people from prisons.
They probably did.
There's no doubt in my mind, but what that probably did happen.
But declaring war on the people of Venezuela, bombing them into submission, destroying that country, is in my judgment unjustified.
That's that's not going to win anything for us.
In fact, it's going to probably be a catalyst for a larger Latin American crusade against the United States.
I mean, we aren't very popular in Latin America, as you know, Judge, anyway.
We have a troubled history with the people down there.
This is going to make matters infinitely worse.
And now President Trump has severed diplomatic relations, which looks like the precursor to armed action.
So in that sense, no, there's no danger, direct danger from Venezuela.
No danger, frankly, Judge, that we could not protect ourselves against if we guard our borders and coastal waters and pay attention to who's inside our country and deal with that problem.
You know, Tulsi Gavard has spoken to the American public and said we have serious dangers inside the United States as a result of millions of people coming in here with agendas that we know we don't know much about them, but we know we have Islamists who've come in, various terrorists, and large numbers of criminals.
Well, she's right.
That's where we should focus, not on bombing another country, least of all Iran, which is certainly over the last 30 years, I would argue, certain well, certainly since 2001, tried very hard to find a way to repair its relations with us.
Right.
And we shouldn't be blowing up uh speed boats that are 1,500 miles from our shore.
Uh Colonel, I have to run, but thank you very much.
A great conversation, as always.
All the best, my dear friend.
I look forward to seeing you next week.
Okay, thank you, Judge.
Thank you.
And coming up later uh today at one o'clock, Aaron Mate.
At two o'clock, Professor Glenn Diesen at three o'clock, Phil Giraldi.
▲
Export Selection