 In a thought-provoking analysis of the recent escalations in the Middle East, American veteran Colonel McGregor has offered insights that challenge prevailing narratives. Speaking on the widely watched Judging Freedom show hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano, Colonel McGregor provided a nuanced appraisal of Iran's recent actions and their implications for the region. Colonel McGregor characterised Iran's retaliatory measures as one of the most successful operations since the Iranian Revolution of the 1970s. He emphasised that Iran's re-establishment of deterrence capabilities marks a significant shift catapulting the nation back into the forefront of regional relevance. This, he noted, comes after decades of what he described as the sidelining of Iran's concerns by successive Israeli governments over the past half-century. Notably Colonel McGregor asserted that Israel has been dealt a defeat in the recent events. He cautioned that any subsequent actions taken by Israel could be perceived as desperate attempts to salvage its reputation. The veteran emphasised that Iran's ability to penetrate multiple layers of Israeli and proxy air defence systems underscores its significant military advancements and warrants respect from both allies and adversaries in the Middle East. Drawing attention to statements made by military leaders in Tehran following the operation, Colonel McGregor highlighted a shift in Iran's stance. He cited declarations indicating an end to Iran's patience and a commitment to meet out proportionate responses to any future attacks on its interests. According to Colonel McGregor, this signals a new dynamic in the region, one that Israel is struggling to comprehend and adapt to. Listening to the events of the weekend, Colonel, about which you have written, did the Ukrainian government succeed in delivering the message it attempted to deliver? Or, as the Western media would have had you believe, was this a defensive triumph with virtually nothing leaking through? You mean the Iranian military? Did I say Ukraine? I meant Iran. You were still one foot in the Ukraine at this point. We need to get out. Correct. Thank you. No, I don't think the people in the West were attuned to receiving any messages. But the Iranians, I think, were very careful in how they executed this operation to make it abundantly clear, even though we are not necessarily being told that, that they did not want to kill anyone, particularly civilians, and they targeted military installations. They did hit some, as we now know, and they did inflict some damage. And they simply wanted the Israelis to understand that they have the capability to precisely strike. But they did not use their best weaponry. They did not use many of the capabilities at their disposal that we might have otherwise seen. But the message is obvious. If we can penetrate your air and missile defenses with old weaponry by diverting your attention with these slow flying, low flying drones, then we can obviously do this with our best weapons. But I don't think it makes any difference. I don't think any positive message was received anywhere. Is that because of the attitude and the view that the Israeli government has of itself, or is it indifferent to reality? I don't think everyone is indifferent to reality, but I think they want to deny it. The Israelis, as I think Alistair Crook pointed out very eloquently, are in a lot of trouble. The Gaza campaign has not gone well. Hezbollah is very much intact. The West Bank is unruly and tense, and the Israeli population has begun to wonder whether or not they can possibly win anything. But there is also this fatalistic dimension to their character that says, well, if we can't have what we want, we'll just go down fighting and do as much damage on the way down as we can. I think Alistair Crook is right about that. On the other hand, Netanyahu and his war cabinet have a trump card. The trump card is the United States Armed Forces, the backing of the United States. I don't think they pay any attention to anything that President Biden says or does. We know that he said we would not join in any future retaliation against Iran, but I don't think they take that seriously, because they have more influence on the Hill and inside our government right now than President Biden does. What is your view from a military perspective of what Iran did? The sending of drones intentionally to draw defensive weaponry, identifying the location of the defensive weaponry and wasting them. According to Scott Ritter, the Israelis spent about a billion dollars in one night, a lot of money for a government of that size. And then if you add what the British, Jordanians and Americans spent, you can almost double that. Do you agree with those assessments? I think Scott's right. I don't know that it was a billion. It could have been 1.2 or 1.3 billion. But obviously utilizing million dollar missiles to shoot down drones that may cost a couple of thousand dollars each is an obvious waste of time, money and resources. But clearly they have a much better picture now of Israeli air and missile defense. Now keep something else in mind. The Israelis did a very good job of protecting themselves. I don't think anybody doubts it. But what we need to take from this is an understanding that it is possible always for any enemy that has accumulated large numbers of missiles, whether they are the most modern or old doesn't make much difference. It is very possible for an enemy to overwhelm any air and missile defense system with enough projectiles. And I think that was part of the message that the Israelis were sending. I mean, just imagine, as I pointed out in the article, what would have happened if they had sent 1,500 tactical ballistic missiles and three or 4,000 drones in waves over a period of 24 to 48 hours, which the Iranians are capable of doing? Well, they would have exhausted the air and missile defenses very quickly. That doesn't even include the target hits that would have destroyed many of the anti-missile batteries that are on the ground. And we don't know what would happen in the air because we haven't had anybody fly against Iranian air defenses. They have the S-400. We'll find out if that S-400 Russian system is as good as everybody says it is. But the bottom line is you could overwhelm any air and missile defense system. And I hope that the Israelis took that message, but I'm afraid that they're going to go on the offensive. How extensive is the Iranian arsenal? Well, you're talking about tens of thousands of missiles, hundreds of modern and sophisticated. Modern. It's at the top of the line. You don't have this hypersonic missile question is an important one. As several people have reported the use of two or three or four hypersonic missiles. I haven't been able to personally confirm it. But then again, with this administration, despite my clearance, I do not have any access to that kind of information. They may, in fact, have used some of those. But I think we need to understand that they have access to at least as modern missile technology as we do, thanks to the Russians, the Chinese, and obviously the North Koreans. And that that technology is enough to overcome any air and missile defense system the Israelis can build. It's very simple. And do the Israelis understand that, Colonel? The last part of what you just said, they have enough to overcome any defensive system that the Israelis can build. Does the Netanyahu government know that? I think privately behind the scenes, they've reached that conclusion. But that hasn't dissuaded them from further action. In fact, I think they view that as making further action imperative. In other words, we need to attack these people and deprive them of the command and control, deprive them of some of their best weapon systems, attack their arsenals, attack their underground facilities, especially their alleged nuclear facility underground. They have a nuclear facility on the surface as well, but it's not utilized for the military anymore. It's utilized primarily for civilian purposes. But nevertheless, I think they've decided they're gonna have to go in and inflict very serious damage on Iran. That's the only way forward as far as they're concerned. I don't think they can imagine living in the Middle East with countries around them that are equal to or greater than they in terms of military power. Here's Lord David Cameron, British Foreign Minister, giving sort of the Western view of things. Now, we know a lot more now than we did when he made the statement, which is Sunday morning, British time on a British talk show cut number eight. What about Iran's frustration at part of its sovereign territory being flattened? Well, I would argue there is a massive degree of difference between what Israel did in Damascus. And as I said, 301 weapons being launched by the state of Iran at the state of Israel. For the first time, a state on state attack, 101 ballistic missiles, 36 cruise missiles, 185 drones, that is a degree of difference. And I think a reckless and dangerous thing for Iran to have done. I think the whole world can see all these countries that have somehow wondered, well, you know, what is the true nature of Iran? It's there in black and white. As I saw this colonel, I thought he's missed the degree of difference. The degree of difference is the Israelis murdered two generals and killed 15 other people and destroyed a legally immune target known as a consulate adjacent to an embassy. The Iranians didn't didn't kill anyone and targeted purely intelligence and military. No, I think that's true. The other thing that he doesn't bother to point out is that the Iranians were very open about what they were going to do. They actually informed us through intelligence channels, through the Central Intelligence Agency, that they would under no circumstances attack any of our installations provided we did not attack theirs. We knew that. Secondly, they were very transparent that it would come within the next two or three days and that it would consist of largely what we saw in terms of drones and tactical ballistic missiles. So, you know, he's not he's not telling you the rest of the story. The Israelis needless to say did not inform anybody of their intention or readiness to do anything in Syria. They simply did what they've always done. They saw targets. They thought they were lucrative and they wanted to inflict harm and they did. And as you point out that even though today people are saying, oh, no, it was a safe house. Oh, no, that's not true. Now, I'm sorry, it is true. This this was a consulate and they may not have liked the people in it. But attacking it is off limits as far as international law is concerned. Of course, we know that international law is something we only pay attention to when it suits us. That's certainly true for Israel. Right, right. Just to liven things up a little bit. Here is a member of Parliament, George Galloway, ripping into the prime minister. But the prime minister's response is interesting because it's nearly verbatim. What we just heard from his foreign minister is the former prime minister has cut number nine. So, Speaker, I knew your father well for a very long time. He was a fine man and I am sincerely sorry for your loss. Once did he condemn that action or indeed the actions of Hamas in the region? There is no equivalence between these things whatsoever. And to suggest otherwise is simply wrong. Did the British such a pip, George Galloway, did the British government materially participate in the defense of Israel on Saturday night? Yes. They had had some aircraft in the air that apparently participate in shooting down these drones that are low and slow. Remember, it took the drones practically four hours to fly all the way to Israel. And they were detected immediately. The Iranians made no attempt to hide anything. And as a result, they were generally speaking very easy targets. But as I think your other guests have pointed out, they did the Iranians a great service by showing the Iranians where the Israeli air and missile defenses are their radar systems and command and control. And that's really what the Iranians were interested in. They didn't really want to hurt anybody because they don't want to escalate this. They don't want to war. Israel very definitely has an interest in escalating. They as I said earlier, as long as they've got us in a position where we are obliged to support them. And that's certainly the case in Washington. Then they're going to act. But this, you know, Mr. Soonak is saying exactly what his foreign minister said. They're all saying exactly what's being said in Washington. So they're all singing from exactly the same sheet of music. My hats off to them is very well orchestrated. Colonel McGregor's analysis offers a balanced yet stark reality check for Israel and its conduct in the region. In a nuanced assessment, the veterans celebrated the Iranian military's ingenuity while cautioning against potential repercussions for Israel's actions. Colonel McGregor praised the Iranian military's advancements, acknowledging their ingenuity and success in recent operations. However, he highlighted a concerning pattern. Israel's discomfort with any perceived equalization of military capabilities in the region. He suggested that Israel's attack on the Iranian consulate may have been a calculated move aimed at provoking a large scale military response and potentially targeting Iran's nuclear facilities in a preemptive strike to thwart alleged nuclear ambitions. Amidst these escalating tensions, Colonel McGregor underscored the importance of Russia seizing the opportunity to showcase the effectiveness of its air defense technology, particularly the S 400 system. He emphasized that the outcome of any potential conflict could hinge on the performance of Russian defense equipment, potentially bolstering Moscow's global standing in defense technology and arms sales and Israel defeat Iran without the United States. No, no, but again, the Iranians, the Israelis know that, but they assume that we will come in one way or the other. Well, one way or the other must mean air and naval. Could you even envision troops on the ground? No, no, you could certainly insert special operators into Iran. I mean, this is an enormous country. It's the size of Western Europe. There are about eighty five to eighty nine million people in it, something like that. And if you put that number of people into Western Europe, Western Europe would look almost uninhabited. So we can certainly insert special operations teams in there and they can direct strategic attacks against the Iranian armed forces as a population. But other than air and naval, no, that's all you're going to see. What is your greatest fear? With respect to Israel and Iran, Colonel, particularly if for whatever reason, the Netanyahu government believes it's back as to a wall. I think that mentality is already taken root. Their view is that it's their way or the highway, and their way means that the entire region has to be subjugated or at least docile vis-à-vis Israel and accept whatever Israel does, which is always justified on the basis of their history. And of course, the Second World War. I think the greatest fear that I have is that once Iran is attacked decisively in some fashion by Israel, then we will involve ourselves and contribute to it. And when that occurs, Russia will intervene. Russia will not permit us with the Israelis to destroy Iran. Simply isn't going to happen. Those ties are very close. They're not just politically advantageous. They have economic foundations and Russia is tired of us. You know, we've done enormous, tried to do enormous damage to them. We've succeeded in destroying Ukraine. But Russia hasn't forgotten and Russia is not going to tolerate it. And that puts us in a difficult position because the Israelis may use, at some point, nuclear weapons. That has to be the greatest fear is their use of nuclear weapons. It's not withstanding what Prime Minister Netanyahu famously or infamously told the UN where he had that cartoon of himself holding a bomb. The cartoons of the bomb, not of himself. Do the Israelis know that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon? Yes. And does everybody know in the region, governments I'm talking about, not people in the streets, that Israel does have many nuclear weapons, however they acquired them? Yes. In other words, the Israelis have both the warheads and the delivery systems. The Iranians have delivery systems that could be configured to carry a nuclear warhead. But Iran is what you call a threshold nuclear state. In other words, it's reached the point where it could in a relatively short period of time, perhaps weeks, perhaps months, build warheads that have nuclear capabilities. But they haven't done it. They haven't done it. There's a thought while it was issued some time ago banning it. They've refused to do it. The Russians have reassured them that they will stand by them. But whatever you do, don't cross that threshold. They haven't. The same agreement is with the Chinese. The Chinese are, of course, standing in the background. They will support the Russians and the Iranians if they're pushed to do it because they're so dependent on the oil and natural gas that comes out of the Straits of Omoos. But yes, everyone knows that the Israelis have this. And let's be frank, as Mr. Erdogan pointed out in one of his speeches a couple of months ago, the Israelis have frequently threatened the use of a nuclear weapon against people in the region. And he says, we know what you have and we're not afraid of you. And I think I think that's the problem now. I think that the region is no longer afraid of Israel. And that's the greatest single danger as far as Mr. Netanyahu is concerned, because that means they're the Israeli notion of deterrence, which is total fear of what Israel can do is absolutely essential. And if people are not afraid of it, then Israel will not survive. That's his view. Colonel, are you fearful or let me restate it. Can you envision Prime Minister Netanyahu asking his work cabinet for their consent for him to use nuclear weapons delivered into Iran? Yes, I'm sure that he would unhesitatingly use that capability against Hisbola. Because Hisbola is probably at least as well fortified and dug in as the Ukrainians were in the Donbass. So, you know, this view is we're not going to trade Israeli soldiers' lives for, you know, a half a mile or two miles of ground. We're going to essentially destroy it. When it comes to Iran, the Israelis have convinced themselves that there will be no security for Israel as long as any state in the region, specifically Iran, has the capability to go nuclear. They know that Iran is a threshold nuclear state. Mr. Netanyahu has been very straightforward about it. We will not tolerate that. And I imagine they would use tactical nuclear weapons to try and destroy the underground facilities. Now, the Iranians have anticipated this. They've distributed their command and control. They have placed missiles in various areas. They have clusters and they have a command and control system that's very redundant and designed under worst cases to operate independently. That all of that is on the minds of the Israelis. If they go in there, plus the fact most of what they would deliver is probably going to be from the air. And if they're going to do that, they need US Air Force refueling assets. We can obviously decline to provide those. But the Israelis also have submarines that can launch cruise missiles and they too are nuclear capable. So, you know, the Israelis can get at the Iranians in various ways. Will it work? I don't think so. Will it stop the war? No. Will it make matters much worse? Yes. And that's that's the great danger. I think Israel itself has, from the very beginning, put its very existence at risk when it doesn't need to. But that's my personal opinion. I'm not anxious to see Israel destroyed. I would like to see it survive. But I think under Mr. Netanyahu's leadership, that's going to be very difficult in the months ahead. Colonel, is this BB Netanyahu's dream? Is this is this what he has always wanted during his prime ministership? You know, there are people, others who have studied him in great detail that can give you an opinion on the man I've always regarded him as intelligent and ruthless, a Jewish patriot, if you will. And I think he is. I just think he's wrongheaded. And I think that the very thing that he loves and wants to preserve under all circumstances, regardless of the conditions, which is the state of Israel, is the very thing that could go out of business as a result of his policies. But I hold the minority opinion in the majority of people in Israel. They may not like him, but they absolutely confide great trust and confidence in his leadership and they believe in his policies. Does he understand that Russia might enter the picture if it appears that Iran's back is to the wall? I think he's aware of it. He may not really believe it, but he's aware of it. He certainly knows the Russians have forces on the Golan Heights, making it abundantly clear what they will or will not tolerate in Syria. But again, I think he's betting heavily on us that whatever he does, we will back him, whatever he does, we will ultimately support it and that we are prepared to go to war against Iran and if necessary against Russia. And I've argued repeatedly now for many, many months, as you know, over the last couple of years, we're not prepared for a major regional war anywhere right now and we'd be hard pressed to participate in one and certainly are very unlikely to win one. Therefore, this is not a good time for us to even contemplate such a thing. But I think that's his assumption. And based upon the attitude in Washington to this point, judge, I think it's not an unreasonable assumption on his part that we will do what he says. Do do your former colleagues, the people who are now running the Defense Department, understand what you just said, that we are not equipped for this type of military maneuver, are they going to tell Joe Biden, whatever they think he wants to hear? I think it's, you know, a mix. I think some understand what I've said, but in the past they've used these arguments to argue for more money. More money is not the solution, unfortunately, in defense. We need a fundamental overhaul, reorganization, radical redesign and a radical reorientation of national defense. Nobody wants to go there. And I think as a result, the senior military leadership will go along, regardless of what President Biden and more important his advisors say, they'll go along with them. They're not going to put up a huge fight. They may advise against things. And I think that to his credit, Secretary Austin has actually done that on more than one occasion and said, you know, we this far, but no further, we're really not postured to do what you want us to do. He's made that clear, I think, in Eastern Europe. But this is a different animal. And again, you have a lot of people who mistakenly believe, well, if we're not going to use ground forces, it doesn't matter. The American people won't care. They're not thinking in terms of what kind of damage can be done to us, not just by the Iranians, but certainly by the Russians. If Iran is attacked and the Russians come to their aid, particularly at sea. Meanwhile, we have about a thousand marines on an island off the coast of Taiwan taunting China. Yeah, well, this that's another subject. And unfortunately, you know, if you say the Chinese are not a military threat and they're not, you're immediately attacked as as we have been over the Russian issue as an agent of China, China poses serious problems for us. But we can cope with those without going to war against them. Importantly, the insights provided by Colonel McGregor offer a multifaceted perspective that challenges conventional narratives and underscores the need for careful analysis and diplomatic maneuvering. Colonel McGregor's analysis on the judging freedom show provides a deep dive into the recent flare ups in the region, particularly focusing on Iran's retaliatory actions and Israel's response. His assessment of Iran's military advancements and the implications for regional dynamics sheds light on the shifting power dynamics in the Middle East. The Colonel's emphasis on the need for neutrality and the cautionary warnings regarding potential Israeli actions highlights the delicate balance of power and the high stakes involved. His observations regarding Israel's motivations and the potential consequences of further escalation serve as a sobering reminder of the complexities at play. Moreover, Colonel McGregor's insights into the role of Russia and its advanced air defense technology add another layer of complexity to the situation. The potential for Russian involvement and the impact of its defense capabilities on the outcome of any conflict underscores the interconnectedness of global powers in the region. Thank you for joining us today. To expand our reach and amplify our message, we encourage you to like, share and subscribe to our channel. Together, let's raise awareness and strive for peace. Until next time, stay informed and engaged. Peace.