Source: Tucker Carlson on X
Timeline:
(00:00) Monologue
(18:21) Why Is Israel Making All the Decisions?
(27:48) AI Weapons and the Bombing of Iran Girls' School
(32:59) Would Israel Consult the US Before Launching a Nuclear Weapon?
(41:23) Will More Americans Be Killed Because of Israel's War?
(49:05) Macgregor’s Advice to Trump on How to Get Out
(55:16) Will Israel Use Nuclear Weapons?
(1:00:16) Will the US Commit Ground Troops?
(1:03:32) The Looming Threat of Nuclear War
(1:06:13) The US Military's Thoughts on the War
(1:13:22) The Future of America
Showing posts with label Colonel Douglas Macgregor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colonel Douglas Macgregor. Show all posts
Tucker Carlson & Col. Douglas Macgregor | Newest War Developments: AI Bombings, Advice to Trump, and the Nuclear Agenda to Reset the World | Mar. 9, 2026
Labels
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Iran,
Israel,
Trump,
Tucker Carlson
/
Col. Douglas Macgregor | We're in a Run Up to WW3 | Mar. 8, 2026
Labels
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Iran,
Trump
/
Douglas Macgregor | A New World Emerges: Iran Will Win & Israel May Not Survive | Mar. 2, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Glenn Diesen,
Iran,
Israel,
Russia,
Trump
/
Source: Glenn Diesen youtube
Description:
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor argues a new world is emerging with a new Middle East - in which Iran will win and Israel may not survive.
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor argues a new world is emerging with a new Middle East - in which Iran will win and Israel may not survive.
Col. Douglas Macgregor | US-Iran Diplomacy Fail - Full-Scale War Coming Soon | Feb. 26, 2026
Source: Glenn Diesen youtube
Description:
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor discusses why a decision has likely been made to attack Iran, and why Iran will fight with everything it has as this is a war for survival.
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor discusses why a decision has likely been made to attack Iran, and why Iran will fight with everything it has as this is a war for survival.
Col. Douglas Macgregor | GET READY, Iran Will Not Fall Like a House of Cards | Feb. 25, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Iran,
Israel,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump,
Ukraine
/
Col. Douglas Macgregor | BOMBING IRAN Won't Fix Anything | Feb. 17, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Iran,
Israel,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump,
Ukraine
/
Source: Daniel Davis youtube
Description:
U.S. military leaders are confident in their capabilities against Iran, but any war would likely involve American losses in the air, on the ground, and possibly at sea.
Senator Lindsey Graham is portrayed as accepting those risks, arguing military action is justified despite potential U.S. casualties. The speaker strongly disagrees, arguing there is no compelling U.S. national security reason to attack Iran and that such a war would provoke Iranian retaliation and American deaths.
Col Douglas Macgregor claims some policymakers and commentators view U.S. and Israeli interests as identical, but argues the U.S. has no strategic interest in destroying Iran or its society.
He rejects the idea that Iranians would welcome U.S. military intervention, arguing bombing Iran would not help its population or lead to regime change.
The speaker disputes claims that Iran poses a global threat or is actively pursuing nuclear weapons, arguing Iran’s actions are primarily defensive or regional rather than aimed at world domination.
He criticizes Western media and neoconservative voices, including Mark Thiessen, for promoting war and framing negotiations as requiring Iran’s surrender.
He argues negotiations are unlikely to succeed because U.S. demands—such as ending enrichment, missile programs, and regional influence—are unacceptable to Iran.
He concludes that U.S. policy toward Iran is heavily influenced by Israeli strategic priorities and broader geopolitical and financial power struggles, making compromise unlikely and increasing the risk of conflict.
Overall: The speaker argues that war with Iran would be costly, unnecessary for U.S. security, unlikely to achieve its goals, and driven more by ideology and alliances than by clear American interests.
Description:
U.S. military leaders are confident in their capabilities against Iran, but any war would likely involve American losses in the air, on the ground, and possibly at sea.
Senator Lindsey Graham is portrayed as accepting those risks, arguing military action is justified despite potential U.S. casualties. The speaker strongly disagrees, arguing there is no compelling U.S. national security reason to attack Iran and that such a war would provoke Iranian retaliation and American deaths.
Col Douglas Macgregor claims some policymakers and commentators view U.S. and Israeli interests as identical, but argues the U.S. has no strategic interest in destroying Iran or its society.
He rejects the idea that Iranians would welcome U.S. military intervention, arguing bombing Iran would not help its population or lead to regime change.
The speaker disputes claims that Iran poses a global threat or is actively pursuing nuclear weapons, arguing Iran’s actions are primarily defensive or regional rather than aimed at world domination.
He criticizes Western media and neoconservative voices, including Mark Thiessen, for promoting war and framing negotiations as requiring Iran’s surrender.
He argues negotiations are unlikely to succeed because U.S. demands—such as ending enrichment, missile programs, and regional influence—are unacceptable to Iran.
He concludes that U.S. policy toward Iran is heavily influenced by Israeli strategic priorities and broader geopolitical and financial power struggles, making compromise unlikely and increasing the risk of conflict.
Overall: The speaker argues that war with Iran would be costly, unnecessary for U.S. security, unlikely to achieve its goals, and driven more by ideology and alliances than by clear American interests.
Col. Douglas Macgregor | What if IRAN's MISSILE DEFENSE WORKS? | Feb. 10, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Iran,
Israel,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
Russia,
Trump
/
Source: Daniel Davis youtube
Description:
The discussion examines a potential U.S.–Israel military campaign against Iran, emphasizing that this scenario is fundamentally different from past limited strikes. From the Iranian perspective, previous attacks were framed as narrow and restrained; this time, signals suggest a broader campaign aimed at regime collapse or even state disintegration. That shift would dramatically change Iran’s calculations and response.
The speaker argues that air campaigns alone rarely achieve decisive political outcomes. Historical examples—World War II bombing, Kosovo in 1999, and Serbia’s resilient air defenses—show that even prolonged, intensive air operations struggle to neutralize defenses or force capitulation without political or diplomatic leverage. Applied to Iran, this raises serious doubts about expectations of a short or clean operation.
Iran’s defensive capabilities are now significantly stronger than in the past. In addition to Russian systems like the S-300, Iran has integrated advanced Chinese HQ-9B long-range air defense systems, reportedly capable of engaging stealth aircraft and resisting electronic countermeasures. Even if these systems are only 70–80% effective, they could impose meaningful losses on attacking forces.
More importantly, Iran now has substantial offensive capabilities. Unlike Serbia in 1999, Iran can strike back with a large ballistic missile arsenal. If attacked, Iranian leaders have clearly stated they would respond without restraint—targeting U.S. bases, radar sites, command-and-control hubs, ships at sea, and Israel. Aircraft carriers and naval assets do not need to be sunk to be neutralized; even limited damage could render them ineffective and politically shocking.
The discussion stresses that what some planners assume would be a brief 10–14 day operation could stretch much longer, while the U.S. and its allies may face serious constraints on missile inventories and resupply. Precision missiles are complex and slow to produce, and current stockpiles may be closer to depletion than publicly acknowledged.
Although some military and political figures publicly advocate the military option as the “best” path to regime collapse, the speaker argues that this view understates the risks. A sustained campaign would likely involve massive strikes in the first 24 hours, followed by prolonged escalation in which Iran may outlast Western missile supplies.
The conclusion is stark: this would be a high-risk operation with unpredictable consequences, likely involving widespread regional damage, heavy retaliation, and escalation across all conventional means short of nuclear weapons. Historical caution—such as Eisenhower’s rejection of escalation in Korea—is offered as a reminder that wars intended to be decisive and controlled often become long, costly, and uncontrollable.
Description:
The discussion examines a potential U.S.–Israel military campaign against Iran, emphasizing that this scenario is fundamentally different from past limited strikes. From the Iranian perspective, previous attacks were framed as narrow and restrained; this time, signals suggest a broader campaign aimed at regime collapse or even state disintegration. That shift would dramatically change Iran’s calculations and response.
The speaker argues that air campaigns alone rarely achieve decisive political outcomes. Historical examples—World War II bombing, Kosovo in 1999, and Serbia’s resilient air defenses—show that even prolonged, intensive air operations struggle to neutralize defenses or force capitulation without political or diplomatic leverage. Applied to Iran, this raises serious doubts about expectations of a short or clean operation.
Iran’s defensive capabilities are now significantly stronger than in the past. In addition to Russian systems like the S-300, Iran has integrated advanced Chinese HQ-9B long-range air defense systems, reportedly capable of engaging stealth aircraft and resisting electronic countermeasures. Even if these systems are only 70–80% effective, they could impose meaningful losses on attacking forces.
More importantly, Iran now has substantial offensive capabilities. Unlike Serbia in 1999, Iran can strike back with a large ballistic missile arsenal. If attacked, Iranian leaders have clearly stated they would respond without restraint—targeting U.S. bases, radar sites, command-and-control hubs, ships at sea, and Israel. Aircraft carriers and naval assets do not need to be sunk to be neutralized; even limited damage could render them ineffective and politically shocking.
The discussion stresses that what some planners assume would be a brief 10–14 day operation could stretch much longer, while the U.S. and its allies may face serious constraints on missile inventories and resupply. Precision missiles are complex and slow to produce, and current stockpiles may be closer to depletion than publicly acknowledged.
Although some military and political figures publicly advocate the military option as the “best” path to regime collapse, the speaker argues that this view understates the risks. A sustained campaign would likely involve massive strikes in the first 24 hours, followed by prolonged escalation in which Iran may outlast Western missile supplies.
The conclusion is stark: this would be a high-risk operation with unpredictable consequences, likely involving widespread regional damage, heavy retaliation, and escalation across all conventional means short of nuclear weapons. Historical caution—such as Eisenhower’s rejection of escalation in Korea—is offered as a reminder that wars intended to be decisive and controlled often become long, costly, and uncontrollable.
Douglas Macgregor | Why NATO is Finished & the Ukraine War Was Lost | Jan. 22, 2026
Source: Glenn Diesen youtube
Description:
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor explains why the West is fragmenting and why the Ukraine War was lost.
Description:
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor explains why the West is fragmenting and why the Ukraine War was lost.
Col. Douglas Macgregor | TRUMP at DAVOS | Jan. 21, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
EU,
Greenland,
Iran,
Israel,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
NATO,
Russia,
Trump
/
Col. Douglas Macgregor | U.S. War on Iran Risks Triggering World War | Jan. 13, 2026
Labels
China,
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Glenn Diesen,
Iran,
Israel,
NATO,
Russia,
Trump
/
Source: Glenn Diesen youtube
Description:
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor argues that another US/Israeli war on Iran risks triggering a world war by pulling in Russia and China.
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor argues that another US/Israeli war on Iran risks triggering a world war by pulling in Russia and China.
Col. Douglas Macgregor | This Time We're in A LOT of TROUBLE | Jan. 8, 2026
Labels
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
Greenland,
Lt Col Daniel Davis,
NATO,
Trump,
Venezuela
/
Source: Daniel Davis YouTube
Col. Doug Macgregor | Time to Get Real /Ukraine Boundaries MUST CHANGE | Dec. 21, 2025
Labels
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
EU,
Russia,
Ukraine
/
Col. Douglas Macgregor | Ukraine and European War Fantasies | Dec. 17, 2025
Labels
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
EU,
NATO,
Russia,
Ukraine
/
Douglas Macgregor | U.S. Pivoting Away from Ukraine, Europe & NATO | Dec. 10, 2025
Labels
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
EU,
NATO,
Russia,
Ukraine
/
Source: Glenn Diesen YouTube
Description:
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor argues that the new National Security Strategy communicates that the US is pivoting away from Ukraine, Europe and NATO.
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor argues that the new National Security Strategy communicates that the US is pivoting away from Ukraine, Europe and NATO.
Col. Douglas Macgregor | Ukraine Won't Give Up Land | Dec. 9, 2025
Labels
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
NATO,
Russia,
Ukraine
/
Col. Douglas Macgregor | Pokrovsk in Russian Hands | Dec. 2, 2025
Labels
Colonel Douglas Macgregor,
NATO,
Russia,
Ukraine
/
Douglas Macgregor | NATO Lost the War - Empire of Lies Collapses | Nov. 26, 2025
Source: Glenn Diesen youtube
Description:
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor argues that NATO has lost the Ukraine War, and the consequences are coming in the form of lies being exposed and political disintegration of NATO.
Description:
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel, combat veteran and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor argues that NATO has lost the Ukraine War, and the consequences are coming in the form of lies being exposed and political disintegration of NATO.
