Mac Games Out WW3

Before I get to the title topic, I want to present a brief passage from the book The Brothers. Perhaps it will be well to preface that quote from the book with the (longer) blurb from the Amazon page, because it says a lot about how we got to where we are today:

A joint biography of John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, who led the United States into an unseen war that decisively shaped today's world

During the 1950s, when the Cold War was at its peak, two immensely powerful brothers led the United States into a series of foreign adventures whose effects are still shaking the world.

John Foster Dulles was secretary of state while his brother, Allen Dulles, was director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In this book, Stephen Kinzer places their extraordinary lives against the background of American culture and history. He uses the framework of biography to ask: Why does the United States behave as it does in the world?

The Brothers explores hidden forces that shape the national psyche, from religious piety to Western movies-many of which are about a noble gunman who cleans up a lawless town by killing bad guys. This is how the Dulles brothers saw themselves, and how many Americans still see their country's role in the world.

Propelled by a quintessentially American set of fears and delusions, the Dulles brothers launched violent campaigns against foreign leaders they saw as threats to the United States. These campaigns helped push countries from Guatemala to the Congo into long spirals of violence, led the United States into the Vietnam War, and laid the foundation for decades of hostility between the United States and countries from Cuba to Iran.

The story of the Dulles brothers is the story of America. It illuminates and helps explain the modern history of the United States and the world.

A Kirkus Reviews Best Nonfiction Book of 2013

OK—got that?

The passage I’m about to quote is from pp. 243-244. The “episode” referred to was the 1958 overthrow of the pro-US Sunni monarchy that the Brits had imposed on Iraq in the 1930s.

This episode also illustrated the changing image of Israel in the United States. President Truman had endorsed the creation of Israel in 1948 after overruling both his secretary of state, George Marshall, and his secretary of defense, James Forrestal, who predicted that the existence of a Jewish state would cause endless conflict in the Middle East. Many early settlers in Israel were socialists, and during its first few years of independence Israel was friendly to the Soviet Union. This kept relations between Washington and Tel Aviv cool. So did Foster’s belief, shared by many in the State Department, that the existence of Israel would complicate the making of American foreign policy.

“I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews,” he said at a press conference during the Suez crisis. “Marshall and Forrestal learned that. I am going to try to have one. … I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get Congress to do anything they don’t approve of. … The Israeli Embassy is practically dictating to the Congress through influential Jewish people in this country.”

So, AIPAC, founded in 1954, was already the major power on Capitol Hill by 1958.

With all that behind us, let’s move on to Doug Macgregor’s gaming out of WW3, in a stimulating conversation with Glenn Diesen—which I have transcribed in part. But first, yet another word.

With regard to Macgregor's gaming out of the scenario for WW3, I offer this caveat. I won't say that I outright disagree with anything he says. On the other hand, there may be reasons to believe that WW3 is not necessarily totally baked into the geopolitical mix. I say that as someone who has argued that the Anglo-Zionist Empire—and, prominently in that mix, the US—is seeking, after the debacle of Ukraine, to use Iran as a new front against Russia and, especially, against BRICS. I've presented my views on that in the past and see no reason so far to change those views. That, of course, might appear to be an argument in favor of an imminent WW3, triggered by an Israeli attack on Iran which the US is clearly supporting. However, it may yet be the case that the Anglo-Zionists in the US want a new front in the global war on Russia and BRICS--but not a world war. They may think they can disrupt and bleed Iran and Russia, short of WW3.

What reasons are there to at least hope that the US will pull back from world war? Diesen--and I haven't transcribed this part--points out to Mac that when the US/UK started talking about deep strikes on Russia using their own missiles, assets, and personnel Russia flatly stated that the gloves would come off because that would be an unambiguous act of war. Diesen then said that the US had backed down, and Mac agreed that, yes, the US backed down. Now, some might believe that in the Middle East the US has more firepower at hand than Russia does, but Mac himself provides reasons for believing that that probably doesn't equate to any decisive advantage. Russia/Iran have many strong defensive assets, and the US has significant vulnerabilities. Further, Mac also points out that Russia, apparently, recently threw down a gauntlet. It parked some ships in Iranian harbors and warned against attacking them.

Significantly, the recent doc leak regarding Israeli preparation for an attack on Iran plays into the the argument for US reticence--at least on the part of the Defense Department. Tony Shaffer and Lawrence Wilkerson strongly maintain that the leak was "authorized", meaning, that the Defense Department--the Pentagon--allowed the leak because they did not want the type of Israeli attack that they could see Netanyahu was planning. This looks like another climbdown out of apprehensions regarding Russian responses.

The bottom line is, read what Mac has to say. Think it over. Mac offers plenty of shrewd observations that are based on fact. As usual, he maintains that Turkey will inevitably be drawn in against Israel—which is supported by the ever warmer relations between Ankara and Tehran. My caveats aren't definitive, but they do raise at least the question: Is Mac's scenario inevitable.

Big Changes Coming to the Middle East - Colonel Douglas Macgregor & Professor Glenn Diesen

Glenn: Do you think the Israelis will go to war against Iran? What's holding them back, and how do you think this will play out?

Mac: First of all, I think you're going to see war between Iran and Israel. Mr Netanyahu, if he is to sustain this conflict over time, has to expand it. Things have not gone well in southern Lebanon or in Gaza. Hamas is not defeated, Hezbollah is certainly far from defeated--he hasn't even met the main body of Hezbollah Fighters. Thousands of fighters are pouring in from Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, to reinforce Hezbollah, so that's far from over. But we have to understand, there's something larger at work right now. I think the government in London as well as in Washington has decided to back this greater Israel project with the goal of ultimately clearing Arabs out of southern Lebanon, clearing them out of much of Syria, ultimately dislodging them from the West Bank and Gaza and, eventually, throwing at least the Palestinians [2.18 million out of a total population of 11.5 million] out of Jordan.

Now this sounds extreme to anybody with any common sense, but these things are actually being discussed. It's not as though Mr Netanyahu is waging this ruthless campaign of expulsion and murder on his own. He has support. [Americans are providing critical support is] but so are the British. In some respects I'm beginning to think the British want to relive their empire back in the Middle East. It's very strange.

But those comments notwithstanding, right now [Netanyahu] has got to go after Iran. When does he do it? First of all, he understands that any air defense system designed to shoot down aircraft or missiles can be overwhelmed by enough incoming missiles and aircraft, so that's why he has demanded and gotten the two of the six THAAD batteries that we have. This is the terminal high altitude air defense system with its radar. The radar, of course is remarkable--it's probably one of the best things that we have ever built. ... It's very important because it not only enables you to accurately identify targets at a very great distance--you have lots of early warning, but you're much more likely to hit the target because the missile then has some time to carefully calculate the distance and the time it needs to reach the target. He's also getting the best missiles that we have. These are the top of the line. You can't do much better, and they include interceptors that are capable of of stopping everything but hypersonic missiles. ... Nobody can shoot [hypersonic missiles] down. So I think Neyanyahu's going to wait until the second [THAAD] battery is established, but I think the predisposition is to attack before the election.

Now, the election is important in this calculus because Netanyahu's assuming probably--and with some some degree of justification--that President Trump will win the election. But he can't be 100% sure. If he waits and it turns out that for some reason president Trump doesn't win, there's no guarantee that the incoming administration is going to stand by him--whereas he has promises of support from Trump. [Netanyahu's] agents in the United States that surround president Trump [will ensure?] that the Trump Administration, the future one, will be solidly in the Israel camp and [will] back what [Netanyahu] wants to do. So, under those circumstances, I think Netanyahu's decided we have to attack--that is, Israel has to attack Iran--before the election and get the war started before the election.

When does that happen? ... I don't know, but probably somewhere in [the first days of November], so he'll wait for the additional air and missile defense forces to arrive. They'll be set up and then I suspect he'll launch his attack, which I expect to be very powerful--as powerful as he can make it. The only question at this stage is, will [Israel] use a tactical nuclear weapon, or two tactical nuclear weapons, or three tactical nuclear weapons, against Iran's alleged nuclear site? We have ultimately asked him not to do that, but he has these weapons and he's made it very clear that whatever we want is secondary to his and Israel's interests and therefore he will do what he thinks is appropriate. The problem, of course, with using a nuclear weapon is that you open the proverbial bottle and the genie comes out. That then makes it legitimate for others to use those weapons against you, and we know that Iran is close to the threshold of producing warheads that can be weaponized on the missiles available to the Iranians. So hopefully that won't happen. But it could.

At any rate, that's the situation he's in right now. Then the Iranians will respond and the question at this stage of the game is how rapidly they will respond. Will they respond instantly, start unloading their missiles on Israel as soon as they discover that they are under attack, or do they wait and then attack? I don't know, but I think that'll be devastating for Israel. It's going to be hard on Iran but ... Iran is is going to absorb it. And then they're going to strike back, and they will have every bit of help that Russia and China can provide to them.

...

Let's go to the north first and look at the position of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not defeated, it has not been destroyed, but the Israeli goal moves beyond Hezbollah. They are destroying infrastructure, making it impossible for people to live where they currently live. That's not accidental. This is what's being done in Gaza. In other words this is a war on the population, not just against Hezbollah. That reality is sinking in. It has sunk in in Ankara [capital of Turkiye]. They understand now that they're on the verge of receiving a flood of refugees which they cannot manage. The pressure on Erdogan inside his country to intervene and act against the Israelis is overwhelming, and I would expect that there would be preparations for that. His focus is obviously on Syria because Syria is the bridge between Lebanon and Turkey, so Syria is of great concern because we have backed for some time Kurdish Rebels who are committed to destroy Turkey. [In the news today, Turkish jets struck at US proxies in Syria.] We and the Mossad--and when I'm talking about "we" I'm talking about the CIA and Special Operations forces--have worked with the Kurds for a long time and they are now taking action. There was a terrorist attack in Turkey quite recently. Today it interrupted the BRICS conference briefly and President Putin read a a letter of condolence to president Erdogan.

[T]he Turks have been ... looking in two directions. One, of course, is the Kurdish problem which they are quite willing to go in and eliminate. But also towards Israel, for the terrible Injustice committed against the the Muslim population of Palestine. [The Turks and the Palestinians are both] Sunni Muslims and there's an expectation in the old region that Turkey historically ruled that the Turks have an obligation to take an interest in what's being done to the people that live there. Thus far Erdogan has failed on that score. We will see what happens next, but I think now that it's clear that Syria is part of the greater Israel project along with the West Bank and Lebanon. I think we'll finally see the Turks engage. [Turkey has formally applied for membership in BRICS.]

...

All of these are reasons why Mr Netanyahu desperately wants us in the war, because he understands that he cannot prevail in this environment without us. So he's in a position where he either kills his way out of this-- kills as many Arabs as possible and then, if anybody else gets involved, kill them--whether they're Turks or Iranians. But the bottom line is he's got to kill as many as possible and cleanse the state north of the river, initially, well into Syria, well into Lebanon, even--if he can--all the way up to Beirut. Get rid of as many as there are people there, and then try to attain some sort of peace settlement that leaves him in charge of most of this territory. And then he hopes to fill it with Jews.

We are the instrument. If we don't go in and support him very strongly, if we don't back him particularly after the Iranians' counter strike, then he can't win. Now, if we support him, can he win? That's iffy. We haven't seen large numbers of our aircraft fly against Russian S400 air and missile defense systems, so that that depends greatly on how well we perform. It also depends on what happens when we come under attack, and how many missiles fall on us, and how they target us at sea as well as on the land. A lot of open questions. We don't know the answers, but I think think it would be a mistake to assume that Iran--and, for that matter, Turkey--will be pushovers. I don't see it that way. I think these are going to be very tough nuts to crack, and I don't think they're going to crack. Israel, on the other hand, may be the one that cracks, because it has the most to lose.

...

The Iranians' counter strike--that's when we come in. I mean, we will come in. We have a thousand fighters [jets] ready to go. We have large numbers of bombers sitting down on Diego Garcia and other locations. We can fly them all the way from Nebraska if we need to, and drop enormous quantities of ordinance on Iran. The Russians have made it clear they will not stand by and watch Iran be destroyed. The Russians put some ships into an Iranian port recently and then sent a message saying, Don't attack Iran. I think the Russians would like nothing better than to see no war, but they have thousands of men on the ground--technicians and soldiers--who are not only assembling air and missile defense capabilities but are also building up the intelligence surveillance reconnaissance [ISR] capabilities. They have moved pilots down there who can fly Iranian aircraft and other kinds of aircraft as needed, and I think we'll see a lot of long range ballistic missiles--maybe some that we didn't expect. But it will all be conventional, initially, unless of course Israel uses a tactical nuclear weapon, in which case then I guess the so-called guard rails are completely abandoned .

...

As soon as this thing blows up in the Middle East everyone will turn decisively away from Ukraine and whatever happens there will be written off.

Glenn: Yeah it's this big joke that Putin ended covid because once the Russians invaded Ukraine in February 2022 suddenly we stopped talking about covid, almost over night.

Mac: Glenn, there's something else, and people need to understand this. Americans aren't really interested in either of these conflicts--most of them don't care. But they're going to be very upset when this financial crisis that looms on the horizon finally breaks. The outbreak of a major war in the Middle East will be a catalyst for that financial crisis. We'll see the markets fall apart, the bond business--which is already a terrible show, a theatrical exercise. Nobody wants to buy our bonds. When those things all come together the American people are going to want answers and they're going to be concerned about putting food on the table again. They're going to be concerned about supply chains that don't work, concerned about money they can't get access to because the banking sector is in serious trouble. The bottom line is that this thing [a seemingly normal economic situation] is not going to last much longer, and I think President Putin knows that. And that's another reason why he's moved carefully. Xi, by the way, president XI in China doesn't want us to collapse because that's going to have consequences for him. We are China's biggest market and if we collapse he's not going to be able to sell much to us. He's not going to be able to sell elsewhere on the scale that he does to us. This is a strange set of circumstances, but it all points to disaster here in the United States, eventually. It just won't come soon enough to avert the war in the Middle East.