Mac: America's New Long War

I’ve just listened to Doug Macgregor’s interview today with Glenn Diesen: America's New Long War. This, of course, is the title of Mac’s “article” on his X site. I had toyed with the idea of pasting the whole thing in the other day, but events—plus his long discussion on the same topic—have decided me. I’ll go ahead with that. I suspect that Mac would want as much attention to this as possible. As I mentioned earlier, I have in the past repeatedly focused on the geopolitical importance of Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus and in the area of Pan-Turkism. In the video Mac emphasizes that Russia and Iran provide mutual lifelines to each other in resisting the Anglo-Zionist Empire—and a hostile Azerbaijan athwart those lifelines is therefore an existential threat to both.

How many Americans who voted for Trump thought that they were voting for a New Long War for America? Very few, I’m sure. Mac continues to insist that Trump doesn’t want war. Perhaps that’s true—in the sense that he prefers to bully people into submission. But in general my response is: You could fool me.

America’s New Long War

Wars frequently pick up where the last ones left off. World War II ended where World War 1 ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom (Gulf War II) began where Desert Storm (Gulf War I) concluded.

Today there is every reason to expect the recent 12-day conflict between Iran on one side and Israel and the United States on the other to resume when the Israeli and U.S. Forces have replenished their stocks of missiles. No doubt, the Iranians will work hard to radically improve their integrated air defenses. For simplicity, let’s call the current conflict, the “New Long War.”

Nothing stays the same. A renewed war would likely to be very different, now that the stakes for Russia and China are starkly clear.

As always, the New Long War continues with other means. Gen Erik Kurilla, the CENTCOM CDR is known for his close relationship with PM Bibi Netanyahu and his enthusiasm for the Greater Israel Project—including seizure of Sinai and the Suez Canal. Fully aware of the impossibility of rapidly conquering and seizing the Suez Canal without active American military support, General Kurilla may have received authority from President Trump to conduct joint planning.

The presence of a newly established Russia phased array radar in Egypt suggests Moscow is aware of the possibility. The Russian phased array radar can reportedly track stealth aircraft and missile launches at long range.

Further east [actually NNE], some 1,200 miles away in Azerbaijan, Israel’s Azeri-Turkish ally is allegedly preparing to attack Armenia and, potentially, northern Iran. Gen Kurilla also knows that Iran, like Russia, has a long history of cooperation with Orthodox Christian Armenia. Israel provided critical drone technology to Azerbaijan in its last victorious campaign against Armenia, and Azerbaijan likely provided support for Israeli operations against Iran.

I believe Mac gets this a bit wrong. The current Armenian PM, Nikol Pashinyan, is a long time supporter of distancing from Russia and closer ties with Turkey. He came to power with the help of pro-Western NGO’s and has pursued NATO and EU ties and has stiffed Russia and Iran (traditional protectors of Armenia against the Turks) ever since. He is now reported to be prepared to cede even more Armenian territory to Azerbaijan and even to be part of a grand Turko-Armenian-Azerbaijani alliance that would be hostile to both Russia and Iran.

GEN Kurilla is also acquainted with the MEK (Mojahedin-e-Khalq) an anti-Iranian Kurdish Force formerly aligned with Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq. The MEK fights for regime change in Iran and is predictably now aligned with the Trump Administration.

Kurdish elements are only one of several splinter MEK groups.

Azerbaijan’s goal is a greater Azerbaijan created by forcibly annexing Iran’s Turkic Azeri population centered on Tabriz in Northern Iran. The unspoken assumption in Washington, Jerusalem, and Baku is that the Azeri Turks in Northern Iran will welcome the opportunity to join with their Azeri neighbors. The national leaders in all three States view this operation as contributing to the breakup and destruction of Iranian national unity, as well as the desired regime changes in Tehran. These operations are in the planning stage but could be launched at any time. These may or may not wait for the U.S. and Israeli missile arsenals to be replenished.

There are reports of continued sabotage attacks in Iran.

A similar approach was employed in Ukraine against Russia. However, the operation to remove President Putin from power in Moscow, to foment unrest and violence against Moscow inside Russia, Kazakhstan and other neighboring states was botched.

Washington’s gamble failed. Russia remains intact. Russia’s resources remain beyond the reach of Western financial power. The Russian State and its military power are stronger than ever. Ukraine is destroyed.

The history of Washington’s military interventions is not encouraging. Washington’s interventions since 1953 failed to cultivate the emergence of any liberal democratic states. If anything, Washington’s near constant interventionism spread authoritarianism across North Africa and the Middle East. The new long war seeks to subvert and destroy Iran promising a similar outcome.

However, this time, the New Long War will invite broader participation from numerous Muslim states, Russia, and China. In contrast to past interventions, the new long war could also prove impossible to sustain inside American society. As seen during the Black Lives Matter (BLM)/Antifa riots in 2020 and, more recently, the appearance of Mexican flags during anti-ICE demonstrations in Los Angeles, American societal cohesion is low, with ominous connotations for American national power.

Notwithstanding President Trump’s tariff offensive, the trade policies sponsored by both parties for at least 40 years encouraged de-industrialization. The problem is inseparable from immigration policy. Since 1965, America has admitted over 50 million legal immigrants, most from the developing world. Today, there may be as many as 50 million illegal immigrants inside the U.S., including 20 to 30 million illegals that arrived during the Biden administration. Simultaneously, real wages for working-class Americans stagnated despite real increases in productivity and soaring corporate profits.

At the same time, Washington’s financialization of the economy—a form of rent extraction, with profits earned through privileged access to new money created by the Federal Reserve—combined with the destruction of American manufacturing, supports a massive wealth transfer mechanism. Economic data collected between 1979 and 2018 shows that while productivity increased by 59.7%, hourly compensation for non-supervisory workers rose by only 17.5%. The difference went to capital owners and financial intermediaries. Wealth moved from America’s dying middle class to the top 10 percent of income earners.

The implications of these developments for Washington’s global political, military, and economic power are profound. Why? There are multiple reasons, but three are of immediate importance:

First, in the five decades since Washington disestablished the gold standard, the debt-to-GDP ratio has grown from 40 percent to more than 120 percent of GDP and it continues to climb. Consequently, the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet expanded from $80 billion to well over $8 trillion. With spending levels and deficit trajectories that are not sustainable, the notion of a trillion-dollar defense budget is absurd.

Second, there is an undeniable shift in the global balance of economic power. A new intercontinental commercial trading and monetary system is rising. It’s called BRICS, an intergovernmental organization consisting of ten nation-states: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates. Together, these nation-states constitute more than a third of global GDP. A further 50 or more nation-states that want to join BRICS will push it to nearly 50 percent of global GDP.

More important, China, Russia, India, and Iran are civilizational constructs—power centers that, after centuries of trailing in development behind the West (or enduring its exploitation), are now roaring back to life. In some ways, the world of the 21st century may be on track to resurrect the constellation of powers that dominated the world in the 11th century.

Third, the proliferation of technology across national borders combined with the growth of high human capital inside BRICS is conferring military capabilities on BRICS members that were previously unavailable to any but Western Powers. Put another way, the attempt to repeat a Desert Storm scenario anywhere on the Eurasian landmass would spell disaster for American military power.

Finally, Washington’s political class manifests much less regard for the long-term strategic interests of its own citizens—their security and prosperity. As a result, Washington pays an exorbitant price in reputation and treasure for policies that confront Palestinians with the choice of death or expulsion from their homelands.

There are many moving parts in the regional strategy outlined at the beginning of this post. Assumptions of tacit acceptance or rapid capitulation are implicit and dangerous.

When Hitler was briefed on the expected Soviet reaction to Operation Barbarossa, Major General Ernst Koestring, a Prussian officer fluent in Russian from a family that had lived in Moscow since the reign of Catherine the Great, advised: “Initially, German forces will advance rapidly. The various peoples on the Soviet periphery will likely welcome the German forces. Resistance will be weak. But when the Germans advance into Russian territory, the resistance will be tremendous. The Russian population will fight for every square meter of territory.”

Hitler politely thanked him but remained convinced that poor Soviet military performance in Finland in 1939 suggested a different outcome in 1941. Koestring, of course, was right.

I fully agree with Mac’s conclusion. The American ruling class is plunging ahead recklessly with little concern for consensus building based on realistic appraisals of American interests rather than propaganda and ruling class self interest.

Diplomacy is the art of the possible. Warfare is always a gamble.

A partial success in the diplomatic sphere is preferable to gambling on success in war that may turn into catastrophic failure. Unless the American electorate demands accountability for what the White House and Congress do in their name, Americans will face a grim reckoning with financial, political, and military reality at home and abroad.

*Graftful [sic—edit needed] to Dave Ramaswamy for his edits and suggestions.

In his interview with Diesen, Mac also discusses the inherent weakness of the Gulf Arab states and describes Iraq as a “force multiplier” for Iran, describing the two as basically allies. Iraq doesn’t control its own air space, but its sympathies are clearly antagonistic to the Arab states that destroy Iraq as well as to Turkey.