Retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor says the United States is on the brink of war with Iran and that the driving force behind it is not American national interest but Israeli strategic demands.
In a wide-ranging interview on Commodity Culture with host Jesse Day, Macgregor said the probability of a U.S. strike on Iran now stands at “99 percent,” citing rapid military positioning and escalating political rhetoric.
“This is Israel’s war,” he said. “We will attack when the Israelis say they’re comfortable, and we will continue to do whatever we’re going to do during the attack until the Israelis ask us to stop.”
His comments come as the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group moves into position and U.S. air assets reportedly mass across the region.
But for Macgregor, the more revealing story is not the hardware — it’s the hierarchy of political priorities inside Washington.
“My Top Priority Is Israel”
Macgregor argued that the clearest evidence of what he sees as a profound shift in U.S. policy can be found in public statements by senior officials following the last election.
Referring to Kash Patel, he described what he characterized as a startling exchange:
“If you go back to the period right after the election,” Macgregor said, “you start asking questions of somebody like Kash Patel — ‘What’s your top priority?’ And he immediately answered: Israel.”
He continued:
“You’re the attorney general of the United States and you say your top priority is Israel. What are we talking about here?”
Macgregor then pointed to another example, this time involving Dan Bongino.
“They asked Bongino and the FBI,” he said, “and he said, ‘Israel.’ What are we talking about here?”
For Macgregor, these responses were not rhetorical missteps but indicators of a deeper political alignment.
“I never in the history of the United States have we ever had cabinet members — principals in any administration — say, ‘Well, my top priority is country X. Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan.’ Of course not. That’s never happened before.”
His argument is not that alliances are improper — the United States has long maintained close ties with Israel — but that publicly ranking a foreign state as a “top priority” represents what he sees as an inversion of political order.
“If you’re bought and paid for by a lobby like this,” Macgregor said, “where is your loyalty? And what kinds of decisions are you making? Are they really in the interest of the American people?”
The Road to War
Macgregor tied these remarks directly to what he believes is an imminent strike on Iran.
He said Israeli demands have crystallized around three core conditions: zero uranium enrichment, major reductions in Iran’s missile arsenal, and the severing of its regional alliances.
“These conditions were set up to ensure there’s a war,” he said.
He warned that while the United States has overwhelming air and naval power, war rarely unfolds according to plan. Russian and Chinese investment in Iran, he noted, runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
“What’s the limit of their tolerance?” he asked. “How much damage will they tolerate before they step in and say, ‘You stop — or we fight too’?”
He cautioned that Iranian missile capabilities — including long-range anti-ship systems — could disable U.S. assets even without sinking them.
“You don’t need to sink a carrier,” he said. “Put a large hole in the deck, and it’s useless.”
Domestic Fallout
Macgregor also questioned whether Americans — struggling with inflation, debt, and border issues — are prepared for another Middle Eastern conflict.
He cited polling showing strong skepticism toward war with Iran and warned that if casualties mount or financial markets react violently, domestic unrest could follow.
“Americans haven’t been engaged in this,” he said. “They want to know why the president isn’t focused on what’s happening here.”
Gold, Debt, and the End of Dollar Dominance
Beyond war, Macgregor sees financial instability looming.
He argued that de-dollarization efforts by China, Russia, and other nations — coupled with large-scale gold accumulation — signal a structural shift in the global monetary system.
“The real indicator is the 10-year bond,” he said. “When that reaches five percent, we’re in serious trouble.”
Gold, he suggested, is quietly re-emerging as the preferred neutral reserve asset, while U.S. dependence on Chinese rare-earth refining presents a strategic vulnerability affecting advanced weapons systems and satellites.
“If it comes out of the ground, invest in it,” he advised. “Food. Mining. Agriculture.”
A Defining Moment
Whether one agrees with Macgregor’s conclusions or not, his central claim is clear: that U.S. foreign policy — particularly toward Iran — is being shaped by priorities that place Israel at the center.
The alleged remarks from Patel and Bongino serve, in his view, as proof of that shift.
“If there’s one thing most of the world can agree on,” Macgregor concluded, “it’s that we should not do this.”
If Washington proceeds, he warned, the consequences could extend far beyond Tehran — accelerating financial instability, deepening domestic fractures, and testing the durability of American power itself.
