Roundup: Politics; Israel's Strategic Calculus

Let’s start by very briefly pointing to political developments in the Imperial City on the Potomac. There are two big stories today. The first is that Rep. Thomas Massie has stated that he will support MTG’s motion to vacate Mike Johnson. In a practical sense, this means that the motion could be brought to the floor of the House at virtually any moment, now that there’s a co-sponsor. The precipitating event appears to have been Johnson’s maneuvering to throw vast new sums of money to foreign client regimes, using means that are certain to have outraged Massie. American Conservative has a very good analysis:

Massie Kicks Effort to Oust Speaker Johnson Into High Gear

State of the Union: Marjorie Taylor Greene is no longer alone—she gained a crucial ally on Tuesday in her campaign to oust Johnson. The Speaker may not last the week.

The second story just took place at the SCOTUS, and you can get a good summary with links (to Jonathan Turley) here:

'Oral Argument Favored Defendants' - Supreme Court Just Ended Hearing Obstruction Case Affecting J6 Defendants

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up Fischer v. United States, a case that could fundamentally change many cases of January 6th defendants, including the prosecution of former president Donald Trump. The case involves the interpretation of a federal statute prohibiting obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations.

Turley believes that he sees the makings of a solid majority that could favor the defendants and Trump. It appears that Justice Thomas may not have participated in the questioning, but I find it hard to believe that he would not be on board, when Roberts came out swinging at the government’s case.

Now, on to an excellent interview with Judge Nap and Doug Macgregor. As usual I’ve done a summary transcript—meaning, even when it’s not literal, it adheres closely to the actual words. When I’ve wanted to be totally clear that my summary is a direct quote, I’ve indicated that with quotation marks.

Col. Douglas Macgregor : Will Israel Go Nuclear?

The discussion begins with Ukraine and ends with China. In between—the great bulk—we are treated to Macgregor’s views on the possibility of serious war in the Middle East.

The Ukraine fantasy is at an end. Ukrainian troops are surrendering in major numbers, even some hardcore nationalist units are refusing to fight. It's over. Sending more money makes no sense. This may be over even sooner than I thought.

Was the Israeli defensive effort a "defensive triumph"?

Iran was carefully attempting to send a clear message, but people in the West simply aren't attuned to messaging of that sort. Iran was clear that they didn't want to kill anyone, and especially not civilians. They were trying to convey, demonstratively, that they have the ability to strike precisely. They didn't use their best weaponry, which should make the message all the more obvious--because they demonstrated their ability to penetrate air defenses even with older weaponry. The drones were simply diversionary.

So far many Israelis remain in denial mode. Alastair Crooke is right--Israel is in a lot of trouble. The Gaza campaign isn't going well, Hezbollah is very much intact, the West Bank is restive, and the Israeli people are beginning to wonder whether they can possibly win anything. But there seems to be a fatalistic Samson Option type mentality--drag as many others down with us as we can.

Netanyahu and the War Cabinet have a trump card--the US armed forces. They don't pay any attention to Zhou. They have more influence on The Hill and inside the government than Zhou does.

Militarily, using million dollar missiles to shoot down cheap drones is an obvious waste of resources. Iran clearly has a much better picture now of Israeli air and missile defense. We need to understand that it is always possible to overwhelm any air defense system if the attacker has sufficient missiles, old or new. Iran has those resources--they have tens of thousands of missiles. As for Iran's defenses, we don't really know. They have the S-400 (Russian) which is highly touted. Another important element is the possibilty, which some have reported, that Iran used a handful of hypersonic missiles. "I haven't been able to personally confirm it, but then again with this administration--despite my clearance--I do not have any access to that kind of information." The bottom line is that Iran has access to missile technology that’s at least as modern as what we have--thanks to the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans. That technology is enough to overcome any defenses Israel can build. "It's very simple."

Behind the scenes the Israelis know this, but they view that as making further action imperative. IOW, 'we need to attack them and deprive them of command and control, some of their best weapon systems, attack their arsenals, attack their underground facilities, especially their alleged underground nuclear facility.’ "They've decided they need to inflict very serious damage on Iran. That's the only way forward as far as their concerned. I don't think they can imagine living in the Middle East with countries around them that are equal to or greater than they in terms of military power."

[Discussion of "Lord" David Cameron's gaslighting, which Macgregor totally dismisses.] The Iranians communicated through intel channels, "the CIA", that they would under no circumstances attack US installations, provided we did not attack theirs. Iran was transparent regarding the timing and composition of the strike package--they made no attempt to hide anything. By comparison, "The Israelis, needless to say, didn't inform anybody" before striking Iran's consulate. "Even though today people [Zionists] are saying, 'Oh, no, it [the Iranian consulate] was a safe house, that's not true [that it was a consulate],' No, I'm sorry, it IS true. This WAS a consulate. They [Israel] may not have liked the people in it, but attacking it is off limits as far as international law is concerned. Of course, we know that international law is something we only pay attention to when it suits us. That's certainly true for Israel."

Judge Nap and Mac have a good laugh at Rishi Sunak, then: Did the British government participate in the defense? Yes. Iran doesn't want to escalate. Israel very definitely does want to escalate. "As long as they have us in a position where we are obliged to support them--and that's certainly the case in Washington--then they're gonna act.”

"Can Israel defeat Iran without the United States? No, no. The Israelis know that, but they assume that we'll come in, one way or another."

Does the Netanyahu government believe its back is to the wall? "That mentality has already taken root. Their view is ... the entire region has to be subjugated or at least docile vis a vis Israel and accept whatever Israel does, which is always justified on the basis of their history and of course WW2."

My greatest fear is that once Iran is attacked by Israel in some fashion then we'll come in, and when that occurs Russia will intervene. "Russia will not allow us, with Israel, to destroy Iran. It simply isn't going to happen." The two countries, Russia and Iran, have deep ties that are not simply a matter of transient political advantage. Plus, "Russia is tired of us. We've tried to do enormous damage to them. We've succeeded in destroying Ukraine. Russia hasn't forgotten and they're not gonna tolerate that. That puts us in a difficult position, because the Israelis may, at some point, use nuclear weapons."

Israel knows Iran doesn't have nukes. Israel's airborne delivery system is iffy, but they do have nuke capable submarine launched cruise missiles. Iran has been told by Russia that if Iran doesn’t develop nukes then Russia will come to their defense. Iran has held to that. The Chinese will support Russia and Iran. The Israelis have frequently threatened to use nukes against other countries in the region. But the region is no longer afraid of Israel. The Israeli notion of deterrence--which is, total fear of what Israel could do--is absolutely essential in the mind of Netanyahu. Without that fear, Netanyahu believes Israel can't survive.

Macgregor is certain that Netanyahu would use nukes in Lebanon. Iran has anticipated all these scenarios and has set up command and control systems that are redundant and can survive. Israel can get at Iran in various ways. "Will it work? I don't think so. Will it makes matters much worse? Yes. Israel, from the very beginning, put its very existence at risk when it doesn't need to."

Does Netanyahu understand that Russia could enter in defense of Iran?

He's aware of it, but he's betting that whatever he does we will back him--including going to war against Iran and, if necessary, against Russia. The US is not prepared for a major regional war ANYWHERE right now. We'd be hard pressed to participate in one and, certainly, to win one. This is not a good time to even contemplate such a thing. But based on what he sees in Washington, Netanyahu's assumption--and it seems a safe one--is that the US will do what he tells us to do.

Austin has been willing to draw a line in Eastern Europe against the politicians, but this [Israel] is a different animal. “A lot of people mistakenly believe that as long as we don't use ground forces it doesn't matter. The American people won't care. They're not thinking in terms of what kind of damage can be done to us--not just by the Iranians but certainly by the Russians. Particularly at sea.”

[Pivot to China]

If you try to tell people that China doesn't pose a military threat to us--and they don't--you're called an agent. China poses serious problems for us, but we can cope with those without going to war against them. Unfortunately, in Washington it's always useful if they can distract the American people by pointing to enemies overseas.