(LifeSiteNews) — In an appearance which presents a startling appraisal of the instability of the United States, retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor spoke of his belief that “we may not make it to 2024.”
Before moving on to his analysis, in which he argues that due to political and economic conditions that the next presidential election may not take place, the brief video opens with a recently released recording of President Donald Trump.
In the segment, originally captured in a CNN interview with the former president, we hear how the U.S. Army under General Mark Milley is alleged to have taken independent military action against Iran – and without the permission of the president.
What is more, Trump refers to papers in his possession which he claims demonstrate that General Milley subsequently went on to name President Trump as the person responsible for the orders.
“See, as president I could have declassified it – but now I can’t. This is still a secret.”
Why does this matter?
Following the leak of this recording, Trump took to Truth Social on June 26 to denounce the leaking of the recording as an attempt to discredit him – and subvert the anticipated presidential election of 2024.
In response to this latest development in what Trump has described as a “witch hunt,” Col. Macgregor argued that Milley was not acting alone in taking military action without authority.
In addition to naming John Bolton, the then National Security Advisor, another prominent neoconservative – with ties to the secret state – was mentioned. Former presidential hopeful and one-time Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who also served as Director of the CIA, was named as a second longtime advocate of war with Iran.
Profit and loss
“You have to look at who their ‘donors’ are,” warned Macgregor. According to him, it is unknown whether General Milley shared the goal of war with Iran, but he “wasn’t going to stand in the way” of the neoconservatives led by Pompeo and Bolton.
Macgregor also named retired General Kenneth McKenzie (USMC), who was then commander of U.S. Central Command responsible for sending a U.S. Global Hawk drone on a mission which violated international airspace law.
The $220 million dollar surveillance drone was shot down, Macgregor claims, because it was skirting the limits of international airspace whilst refusing to identify itself. The downing of the drone was billed as an escalatory move in the Western media.
This was a provocative strategy, said Macgregor, by people whose aim was to get the U.S. into a war with Iran. It was a calculated loss from which the donor class hoped to reap enormous profits. Yet there was one man in the way.
Punished for peace
Drawing parallels with the entry into war in Iraq and Vietnam, Macgregor said there was no thought whatsoever given to the aftermath of starting this war.
“Donald Trump stopped the U.S. going to war with Iran.”
There was no other plan, says MacGregor, than to get the war started and then “somehow, the military will make it work. That happened to us in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya – its happening right now in an attempt to bring us into … confrontation with the Russians over Ukraine”.
The provocative actions against Iran were framed as the actions of a president who refused to start the war to which they were intended as a prelude. This is arguably the main reason that we have seen the extraordinary effort maintained to stop Trump becoming president again. Simply put, he is good for the American people, because he is bad for the war business.
Absence of thought
Macgregor says there is “no serious thinking” about the consequences of igniting war on a larger scale than the U.S. has fought since the 1970s.
In the first admission I have noted from any commentator, Macgregor draws an obvious if neglected conclusion from a hypothetical “victory” over Iran.
“We destroy [Iran]. What do these people do? Well they leave. They pour into surrounding countries.”
Who would benefit from the deliberate destruction of Iran? One candidate is Turkey, says Macgregor, whose power would increase dramatically were the U.S. to obliterate its major regional rival power.
The business of forever war
After mentioning the neoconservative cabal of Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld – who drove the war agenda under President George W. Bush – Macgregor refers to the remarks of another: Norman Podhoretz.
Macgregor claimed that Podhoretz, a former adviser to John McCain, was on record praying for a war with Iran. From a Commentary magazine article by Podhoretz, June 2007:
Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this President, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.
And in a 2007 Politico report, Podhoretz argued that the Iraq War he pressed for would be won, with “all the despotisms” in the world “becoming free societies”:
President Bush and Karl Rove sat listening to Norman Podhoretz for roughly 45 minutes at the White House as the patriarch of neoconservatism argued that the United States should bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The meeting was not on the president’s public schedule.
Rove was silent throughout, though he took notes. The president listened diligently, Podhoretz said as he recounted the conversation months later, but he ‘didn’t tip his hand.’
‘I did say to [the president], that people ask: Why are you spending all this time negotiating sanctions? Time is passing. I said, my friend [Robert] Kagan wrote a column which he said you were giving ‘futility its chance.’ And both he and Karl Rove burst out laughing.’
Podhoretz was a close adviser of the late John McCain, himself a tireless advocate for endless war – especially in Ukraine. Typically, he never acknowledged the destruction and plunder which resulted from the wars he loved to start. None of them ever have to this day, with Robert Kagan and his brother Frederick continuing to urge further wars in the name of peace and democracy.
As Macgregor observes, “this is lunacy.”
Another word might be “evil.”
A bigger picture
Alongside the indication of the deep irrationality of the neoconservative project, which provokes war without ever considering or counting the costs, Macgregor advises that promoting conflict with Russia and China is a recipe for chaos on an unprecedented scale.
“Who is in charge?” he asks. “The American people don’t know what war means.”
He says that America is no longer in a “position of splendid isolation where we can destroy other people’s homes without risking the same here.”
In a sobering observation on the consequences to a war with Russia and China, he notes the likelihood of a “second front” opening in the Caribbean and on the southern border of the U.S. itself.
“The Mexicans have always sided with whomever was against the United States.”
He cites Cuba and Venezuela as two more nations likely to align against the U.S. in this war scenario. Why is this the first we hear of this plausible – and catastrophic – effect of two major wars desired by the donor class?
“No one is thinking” is his stark summation. “There is no strategic thought. And no one is thinking about what’s in the interest of the American people.”
Macgregor claims, by contrast, that to “build prosperity,” to control the borders and “stop importing people that we can’t employ” would be in the interests of Americans, none of whom have voted for any of these wars.
With his customary reach, Macgregor mentions the projected impact of artificial intelligence, which is said to be set to replace most low-skilled jobs within twenty years.
“What are we bringing most of these people in to do?”
It makes no sense, says Macgregor, as he shows that both foreign and domestic policy is driven without regard to their impact.
“Who is thinking about the United States – [about] American society?” observes MacGregor. Who indeed?
‘I don’t think we will ever get to the 2024 election’
Host Patrick Bet-David asks whether the disclosure of the recording of Trump is intended to wreck his presidential campaign. In response, Macgregor makes his most shocking observation of all: that the next election simply isn’t going to happen.
“I think things are going to implode in Washington before then.”
He points to the fragility of the U.S. economy, suggesting a banking crisis so severe that “the banks are closed for two or three weeks.”
“I also think that the levels of violence and criminality in our cities are going to spill over.”
Macgregor foresees the vanishing of another form of American isolationism – the belief that crime and disorder will not reach them where they are.
“People that normally think they can live remote from the problem are now beginning to be touched by the problem.”
‘The Russian hoax on steroids’
The social and financial fallout will be compounded, he believes, by the “complete collapse” of Ukraine.
“I believe that Ukraine is going to lose catastrophically. … People are going to say, ‘Wait a minute – everybody told us Ukraine was winning.’”
Macgregor’s argument is that all these factors will combine in “some way” to “prevent us from reaching another election.”
What is more, he finds plausible Bet-David’s suggestion that Joe Biden is going to be replaced.
“I don’t think Biden will make it through the year.”
The obvious candidate to replace Biden, they argue, is California’s Gavin Newsom. This is a widely rumored move whose feasibility has been explored before, notably in The Hill in November 2022.
According to the retired colonel, the California of Newsom is “the dream world for the Left.” A place with a few rich people, and with millions in poverty, which people and businesses flee in number. This is the vision of America presented by the installation of Newsom as president.
“I don’t think we will tolerate that.”
Macgregor reminds his listeners that revolutions happen “when people can’t eat.” Citing supply chain collapse and inflation driven food prices, Macgregor says the establishment is betting on the “keeping things going without any interruption.”
“Maybe they’re right. I don’t think so.”
The implication is obvious. Macgregor is warning that not only do Americans face the attempt to imprison and neutralize the one candidate who can halt the march to war, but that the corruption and chaos in the state is so severe as to presage a tremendous catastrophe.
Whilst measured in tone, the colonel is warning everyone with ears to hear that a severe crisis is coming, which will involve the imposition of an unelected president serving a nightmare agenda.
Bet-David replies that this “gloom and doom” scenario is highly unlikely. Yet Macgregor replies with a viewpoint which has growing traction amongst critics of the Regime.
“I don’t see that as gloom and doom. I see that as our savior.”
Why would Macgregor say this? His optimism is motivated by his unshaken belief in the resolve of the American people to act. He is certain they will rise against the desperate moves of a regime which is systematically destroying their way of life. In the scenario he outlines, the next act belongs to whoever can muster a motivated and organised opposition. Macgregor believes the American people can and will resist the attempts on the life of their republic he foresees.
Whilst he concedes he may be wrong, Macgregor’s framing fits the emerging picture. If he is right, we could be living in the greatest unforeseen consequence of the 40-year policy of forever war which has ruined the West. Regime change could be coming home at last.