Col Doug Macgregor: Iran-Israel War is NOT OVER

President Donald Trump recently stated that the conflict between Israel and Iran is "over," suggesting both sides are exhausted and that U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities were decisive. He claimed Iran would now abandon its nuclear ambitions. However, defense analyst Col. Douglas Macgregor strongly disagreed, calling Trump’s assertion premature and misleading. Macgregor argued the war is far from over, and the strikes did not destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, viewing the narrative of total success as a political fabrication.

The War is Not Over

Donald Trump’s declaration that the Iran-Israel conflict is over has been met with strong disagreement from defense analyst Colonel Douglas Macgregor. Macgregor believes this statement is not only premature but also potentially dangerous. He points out that while Trump may genuinely believe the war has ended, the reality on the ground suggests otherwise. Macgregor emphasizes that international relations rarely work by simply wishing things into existence, no matter how boldly or frequently a statement is made.

Trump’s claim that U.S. strikes destroyed Iran’s nuclear development capability is, according to Macgregor, simply not true. He states that the idea of complete success is a narrative being pushed, but it does not align with the facts. Macgregor suggests that the sites targeted were largely empty, and the idea that Iran couldn’t move materials in time is unlikely. He warns that this narrative will eventually be exposed as false.

Ignoring Intelligence

One of Macgregor’s main concerns is the apparent disregard for U.S. intelligence in favor of information from other sources, particularly Israel. He suggests that Trump may have chosen to believe what Israel provided, possibly through its connections in the White House, and dismissed his own intelligence community’s assessments. This, Macgregor argues, is a dangerous habit that has been seen in past administrations, where leaders ignore information that doesn’t fit their agenda.

Macgregor contrasts this approach with that of former President Richard Nixon, who, along with Henry Kissinger, was skeptical of intelligence assessments regarding Soviet nuclear capabilities. Nixon and Kissinger sought out direct information from field experts, leading to a more accurate understanding and ultimately, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. Macgregor believes that by relying on external information and demoralizing its own intelligence community, the U.S. risks making poor decisions.

The Illusion of Victory

Trump’s portrayal of the conflict as a decisive victory, with Iran surrendering its nuclear ambitions, is seen by Macgregor as a delusion. He notes that Israel initially expected Iran to collapse quickly under air strikes, but this did not happen. Macgregor views the recent strikes as more of a "PR stunt" or "political theater" rather than a genuine military success that ended the conflict. He points out that the strikes were announced beforehand, and there was little to no resistance from Iran’s air defense systems.

Macgregor warns that this perceived "steady-state outcome" is fragile and that the conflict could easily reignite. He highlights that Israel is running low on resources, and the U.S. has expended a significant amount of its own missile inventory in support of Israel. The U.S. manufacturing base for such armaments is also a concern, as it cannot keep up with demand, unlike Russia and China.

Key Takeaways

• The war is not over: Despite claims of victory, Iran still possesses significant military capabilities, including thousands of missiles, and a manufacturing base to produce more.
• Intelligence ignored: The U.S. administration appears to have prioritized Israeli intelligence over its own, potentially leading to flawed decisions and demoralizing American institutions.
• Nuclear proliferation incentive: The conflict has likely increased Iran’s motivation to develop nuclear weapons, as it sees them as a deterrent against attacks from the U.S. and Israel.
• Regional instability: The ongoing conflict in Gaza, which has resulted in a massive loss of life and displacement, is a major factor in regional instability and is not separate from the broader Iran-Israel dynamic.
• Global implications: The conflict extends beyond Iran and Israel, drawing in the wider Muslim world and being closely watched by global powers like Russia and China.

The Nuclear Question and Regional Dynamics

Macgregor believes that Iran will likely acquire nuclear weapons soon. He argues that the main lesson for Iran from this conflict is that having nuclear weapons deters attacks from the U.S. and Israel. This creates a strong incentive for Iran to pursue its nuclear program more aggressively than ever before. He also points out the double standard where Israel maintains a nuclear monopoly in the region, which it uses to exert influence over its neighbors.

Macgregor also touches on the economic implications, noting that financial interests in New York City and London are deeply invested in the region’s outcome, similar to their interest in Russia. He suggests that the idea of breaking up Iran into smaller, ethnically diverse regions to exploit its resources, particularly oil and natural gas, is a long-standing goal for some, but it has failed, just as similar attempts with Russia have failed.

The Gaza Crisis and Broader Conflict

Macgregor emphasizes that the war is not just about Iran and Israel; it is deeply connected to the ongoing crisis in Gaza. He cites a Harvard-linked study indicating a drastic reduction in Gaza’s population, with hundreds of thousands of Palestinians killed or injured. He states that this war will not end until the Gaza conflict is resolved, highlighting that the Jewish state’s actions are seen by many as an attempt at ethnic cleansing.

This situation, Macgregor notes, is gaining significant attention globally, particularly in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, even if it’s not widely discussed in the U.S. He concludes that the U.S. is complicit in these actions, and the conflict is not just with Iran but with the entire Muslim world.

U.S. Foreign Policy and Leadership

Macgregor criticizes Trump’s approach to foreign policy, describing it as reactive and lacking a coherent strategy. He suggests that Trump often bases decisions on the last person he spoke with, rather than a well-thought-out plan. This impulsiveness, Macgregor argues, leads to inconsistent positions, such as Trump’s shifting stance on NATO.

He also points out the danger of misrepresenting facts and lying in international relations, as it erodes trust. Macgregor believes that the U.S.’s credibility is severely damaged, and it will take years to recover, if ever. He concludes that the current situation, both domestically and internationally, calls for humility, a quality he believes is absent from current U.S. foreign policy.