Reality check: a sober take on the Iran War
Brian D'Agostino
Michael Britton
--
<><><>
To post to this group send to: clios...@googlegroups.com
Clio's Psyche is sponsored by The Psychohistory Forum. For questions visit: cliospsyche.org
Digest is available on request and sends no more than 1 email a day.
Home: http://groups.google.com/group/cliospsyche
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clio’s Psyche" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cliospsyche...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAPm4jpkZjNdpn%3DkAs8ty0M457amE36VksmxetFb0QcMovML%2Bag%40mail.gmail.com.
Brian D'Agostino
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAOd-ijPXye5Q3PmVLhC4PO%3Dr9DhjiTx%2BCH1%3D0m2xzjiOgtZvJA%40mail.gmail.com.
Michael Britton
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAPm4jp%3DDravGpD%3DamKG%2BMd3QyN9g_H4adb_5z1kozjnKfGirzg%40mail.gmail.com.
Brigitte DEMEURE
Douglas Macgregor wikipedia's page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Macgregor
This part is worth reading :
“Underclass” and slavery
In a 2013 radio appearance, Macgregor spoke of an “entitled” " underclass “ of people that were concentrated in ”large urban areas", and the threat he said they posed: "And when the food stamps stop, when the free services end, when the heating bills aren't paid and the heating doesn't come through in many of these large cities—Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Washington, Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit, New Orleans, San Francisco, Los Angeles—this underclass that resides in these places, I think could become very violent."[9]
In 2019, he argued that there were more mostly Irish “slaves” than African slaves in America in the late 1700s.[42]
Immigration
A CNN report in 2020 said Macgregor had often used racist comments and had “demonized immigrants and refugees”. It quoted Macgregor as alleging that Mexican cartels were "driving millions of Mexicans with no education, no skills and the wrong culture into the United States". It noted that Macgregor had "repeatedly advocated instituting martial law at the Mexico–United States border and to 'shoot people' if necessary".[43] Another CNN report said he had described Muslim migrants in Europe as “unwanted invaders”, arriving “with the goal of eventually turning Europe into an Islamic state”.[9]
In 2019, on the Conservative Commandos radio show, Macgregor alleged that George Soros was financing the transportation of foreigners to the United States, purportedly to destroy American culture; he made similar claims about Soros on Lou Dobbs ' Fox show.[24] In April 2021, on Frank Morano's radio show, Macgregor blamed the Democratic Party for non-European immigration purportedly to “outnumber the numbers of Americans of European ancestry”.[44] Such comments by Macgregor were described by Maddow Blog, Media Matters for America, and Insider as a version of Great Replacement Theory.[45][46][47][48]
Kosovo War
In 2014, Macgregor went on Russian state-owned RT and criticized U.S. intervention in the Kosovo War in the late 1990s.[9] He described the results of US intervention in Kosovo as to "put, essentially, a Muslim drug mafia in charge of that country".[5]
(...)
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
After Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Macgregor appeared on three Fox News programs in February and early March to speak in support of Russia's actions. Three days after the war began, he said, "The battle in eastern Ukraine is really almost over,“ and predicted ”If [Ukraine] don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them." Macgregor said he believed Russia should be allowed to seize whatever parts of Ukraine it wanted. In his second appearance, he revised his prediction: "The first five days Russian forces I think frankly were too gentle. They've now corrected that. So, I would say another 10 days this should be completely over. ... I think the most heroic thing he could do right now is come to terms with reality. Neutralize Ukraine." After one of his appearances, Macgregor's comments were characterized by veteran Fox News Pentagon correspondent Jennifer Griffin as “distorting” and " appeasement “ and that he was being an ”apologist" for Putin. After Griffin's remarks, Tucker Carlson —who hosted Macgregor on two successive nights—remarked, "Unlike many of the so-called reporters you see on television, he is not acting secretly as a flack for Lloyd Austin at the Pentagon. No, Doug Macgregor is an honest man." Trey Gowdy, another Fox News host who interviewed Macgregor, said his viewpoint was “stunning and disappointing”.[7][57][58][59][8][60]
Russian state television channels RT and VGTRK broadcast excerpts of Macgregor's second Carlson appearance, which included a characterization of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a "puppet,“ that Russian forces had been ”too gentle" in the early days of the invasion and that Russian president Vladimir Putin was being “demonized” by the United States and NATO.[7][61] His opinions on Russia and Ukraine have caused controversy, with some including Liz Cheney describing Macgregor as being a member of the " Putin wing of the GOP."[62][63][64][65][66]
In a fourth appearance in early March, Macgregor said a ceasefire was close as Ukrainian forces had been "grounded to bits. There's no question about that despite what we report on our mainstream media".[7] He also defended Russia's invasion in an interview on The Grayzone, saying Putin had taken great care with civilians and this was delaying his victory.[67]
In July 2022, on Real America's Voice he told Charlie Kirk that: "The war, with the exception of Kharkiv and Odesa, as far as the Russians are concerned is largely over. There is no intention to do anything else because the Russians don't have a very large army. ... This nonsense that Putin wants to conquer all of Ukraine was never true. All he ever did in the Minsk agreement was ask that Russian speakers, Russian citizens inside Ukraine be treated equally before the law. That they not be penalized for being Russians."[68]
In September 2022, he again predicted on Carlson's show that “this war may be over soon”[69] and later in the month "the Ukrainian army is bled white, tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops have been killed or wounded, Ukraine is really on the ropes". Liz Cheney tweeted in response: " Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch – Why do you continually put Douglas MacGregor on @FoxNews to spread Putin's propaganda and lies? This is absolutely not in America's interest."[70][additional citation(s) needed]
“Cosmopolitans” trope
In an October 2021 speech to the Serbian American Voters Alliance, Macgregor blamed America's problems on what "the Russians used to call certain individuals many, many years ago, rootless cosmopolitans". Commentators noted that " rootless cosmopolitans " (Russian: Безродные Космополиты) was a Soviet antisemitic trope.[71][72][73][74]
Women in combat
Macgregor opposes diversity and affirmative action programs in the military.[75] In a 2021 interview, while serving on the West Point board, he said: "What we call diversity—in the extreme. In other words, affirmative action programs for every conceivable category of humanity that the left wants to come up with. Whether it's someone who is a gender neutral or homosexual or whatever else, the left loves to put us into categories and push this. And the people that went along with it and said, 'sure, let's put women into the combat forces. Let's have women everywhere.' Let's do whatever we want to do. We're going to create this brave new world where everyone is the same. There are no differences, nothing matters. So I think that's where we are."[44]
envoyé : 3 mars 2026 à 14:00
de : Brian D'Agostino <bdagost...@gmail.com>
à : clios...@googlegroups.com
objet : Re: [cliospsyche] Reality check: a sober take on the Iran War
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAPm4jp%3DDravGpD%3DamKG%2BMd3QyN9g_H4adb_5z1kozjnKfGirzg%40mail.gmail.com.
Peter Petschauer
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAOd-ijOnrmFQxqBY5%2BkUOgyvj2Rj%3DE-fOdHLFFVqLYNFofd4dg%40mail.gmail.com.
Brian D'Agostino
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAHUovy8GxOB2JS2YMU6Ut_Xv6jxFbNPrXCDxknWtKkP-TKTUXg%40mail.gmail.com.
Paul Elovitz
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAPm4jp%3D__XKy5Bp5u%2BiMD9huX5h%2BRV5FzwKSAjdBMKT-t79h_g%40mail.gmail.com.
Ken Fuchsman
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAPm4jp%3D__XKy5Bp5u%2BiMD9huX5h%2BRV5FzwKSAjdBMKT-t79h_g%40mail.gmail.com.
Brian D'Agostino
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAD5XYcNkcKDuSPqFCV3Sb6tMJR6y%2B5akZLvfR7DcfybmMGzzCA%40mail.gmail.com.
Ken Fuchsman
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAPm4jpkU4AoZh8AG-bwgXoqj2kWGhRYqY_xWw1UykqiYM1Tx7Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Brian D'Agostino
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAD5XYcMjiKgTJe3%2Bh3Hnu2fh-a9suvJFkuyN0Rq_-iUgMtqr0w%40mail.gmail.com.
Ken Fuchsman
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAPm4jpkJUDm-khK%3DaJkebip6BHE85YRqmTJ13raojjVa%3DvygWg%40mail.gmail.com.
Brian D'Agostino
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAD5XYcNZpJKzZC3yOg8Pwsqmfn3wgxznx01qiO0%3DuLtY45uhyA%40mail.gmail.com.
Ken Fuchsman
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAPm4jpmJOYuX%2BkTaXRsHjnzsycYL5oYk%2BjRF4E%3DSDPkJemtARg%40mail.gmail.com.
Brian D'Agostino
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAD5XYcOdsb%2BUkeCZ2u6vHT%2BZYKw9DBL86-4p-QY6GWFBfe-WKQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Benny Beit-Hallahmi
I suggest looking at some historical documents and events.
First: In June 1996, a group of Americans submitted a document, known as ‘A Clean Break’ to Benjamin Netanyahu, the incoming prime minister of Israel. The document is easily available on the web.
Its authors were:
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University
The document listed the elimination of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, whose regime was a major strategic threat to Israel, as a top priority. Another strategic move listed was attacking Iran. (The document also includes some bizarre fantasies about the Shiites, which are worth looking at for comic relief, and may explain the disastrous consequences of the Iraq War).
This group of authors, and their friends (Wolfowitz etc.) became very influential when George W. Bush became president in 2001. Some of them became close advisers to Bush. A regime change in Iraq became a US goal.
Attacking Iraq was on the agenda immediately after 9/11. I recall an article by the hHistorian David Nirenberg (author of anti-Judaism) who told of taking a train from Washington to New York City not long after 9/11 and overhearing some of the same people (Feith, Wolfowitz, etc.), sitting not far from him, and discussing an attack on Iraq.
The Iraq War indeed eliminated the Saddam Hussein, including the military, which was an enormous gain for Israel. The “Eastern Front” threat, as it had been known in Israel, disappeared.
Attacking Iran was being discussed in Israel since 1996. At some point, Netanyahu was being accused inside Israel as guilty of spending huge amounts on an Iran attack which never materialized.
Second, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formally the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was an agreement between Iran and the US, UK, France, China, Russia, and Germany that limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Not only the US, UK, France, and Germany, but also China and Russia (!!) agreed that Israel should keep its monopoly on weapons of mass destruction in West Asia. This is an amazing diplomatic achievement. No one talks about it. (Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or any treaty dealing with biological and chemical weapons, or even with landmines. Right now, Israel possesses enough nuclear weapons to destroy all forms of life on earth.)
For Israel this was not enough, because Iran was believed to still have nuclear ambitions and was sponsoring groups such as Hizballah and Hamas. For Israel nothing short of destroying the Islamic Republic the way the Baath regime in Iraq was dismantled was acceptable, because Iran and its allies (the Axis of Evil) is an existential threat.
This perception of the existential threat is accurate, as shown by the war that started on 10/7/2023.
It took ten years, and Trump declared regime change in Iran a US goal.
Right now, it looks like the current campaign, which is now ten days old, may end before this goal is attained, due to the developing economic crisis.
Why has the US supported Israel in such a way? US support for Zionism dates back to Woodrow Wilsom.
More recently, it was Caspar Weinberger who said that Israel was, for the US, a stationary aircraft carrier. It has world-class military technology, not just nuclear. All other allies in West Asia are less reliable. Arab regimes are corrupt and unpredictable.
Reality is important, not only group fantasies.
Benny
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/CAPm4jpn4m7QE37-0dNDptyWk8_ZGq%3DdFt2k78rBVPaBAG%3Dfapw%40mail.gmail.com.
Brian D'Agostino
Thank you for this thoughtful and substantial analysis, Benny. You provide important historical background to the current crisis. By way of further historical background, let me add two more items, but first I want to directly address your question, “Why has the US supported Israel in such a way?” I have done doctoral research in US foreign policy, and no one I know can adequately answer that question. But here is my short and partial answer.
I believe there are three “sub-state actors” in US foreign policy that taken as a whole constitute “the war lobby” with respect to the Middle East: (1) the big defense contractors (e.g. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc.; (2) the big oil companies; (3) and AIPAC. Each makes its contribution. In the current war, all three stood to benefit in a narrow sense, and I think they continuously push whoever is in the White House in the direction of war in the Middle East. I don’t know details in the current case, so that is all I’ll say at this point. As for additional historical background for understanding the current war, consider the following:
(1) In 1953, Iran had a democratic, parliamentary government. Their prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, wanted to nationalize Iranian oil, which was not acceptable to British Petroleum (as it is now called). Britain prevailed on Eisenhower to get rid of Mosaddegh, and a coup orchestrated by the CIA deposed the prime minister and installed Shah Reza Pahlavi, who headed an increasingly brutal and autocratic regime for the next 25 years. Unfortunately, both Israel and the US supported the Shah and his reign of terror. So when the Islamic Revolution occurred in 1979, not surprisingly its leaders were bitterly anti-US and anti-Israel.
(2) I think we can all agree that the Islamic Republic is a repressive regime that has posed security challenges to Israel, especially through its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. Nevertheless, consistent with your comments, the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) arguably constituted a model for how to deal with this regime. The JCPOA created a pathway for Iran to participate in the international order and neither threaten Israel with nuclear weapons nor be threated by Israel and the United States. No security arrangements are foolproof, including Israel’s reliance on nuclear weapons. But when Trump ripped up the JCPOA soon after taking office (in 2018), his action had nothing whatsoever to do with international security and was done entirely to destroy his predecessor Obama's most important foreign policy achievement. This was a key antecedent to the ensuing deterioration in US relations with Iran, which culminated in the 2024 12-day war and the current war.
Turning from history to the present and the future, even if the current war turns out favorably for the US and Israel (whatever that means), that outcome in itself will not lay a foundation for enduring peace. Only a negotiated, multilateral, verifiable post-war settlement (comparable to the JCPOA in these respects) can achieve that if anything can. The Trump administration has zero credibility and reliability as a negotiating partner. However, I can envision the Chinese taking a leadership role in facilitating post-war arrangements that don’t just lay the seeds for a future war. If Iran “wins” the war, which I think is likely, they will certainly not agree to demilitarize unless Israel does also, including getting rid of its nuclear weapons.
Incidentally, although Israel is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), ALL nuclear armed states have an obligation under international law to negotiate general nuclear disarmament. The double standard by which some states continue to have nuclear weapons and use force to prevent other states from acquiring them is a grotesque vestige of colonialism that should have no place in the 21st century.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cliospsyche/85f6e6603d5ba122c0feb0fa7498ec55%40mail.gmail.com.