All Episodes
Previous Next
March 24, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
25:34
Ray McGovern : Intel and War in Iran.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Monday, March 24th, 2025.
Ray McGovern is here with us on the role of Intel in a war against Iran.
But first this.
Markets are at an all-time high.
Euphoria has set in.
The economy seems unstoppable, but...
The last administration has buried us so deep in debt and deficits, it's going to take a lot of digging to get us out of this hole.
Are you prepared?
Lear Capital specializes in helping people like me and you grow and protect our wealth with gold.
Did you know that during Trump's last presidency, gold rose 54% to a record high?
If that happens again, that puts gold at $4,200 an ounce.
In his next term.
Don't wait.
Do what I did.
Call Lear at 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com for your free gold ownership kit and special report $4,200 gold ahead.
When you call, ask how you can also get up to $15,000 in bonus gold with a qualifying purchase.
Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them the job.
Hi there, Ray.
Welcome here, my dear friend.
Under the law, if the President of the United States wants to use military force against another country, he must either get a declaration of war from Congress or determine that a threat to the United States from that other country is so imminent.
That it would be imprudent to wait for Congress to debate, and he's going to strike immediately.
Question. What conceivable threat, if any, does Iran pose to the national security of the United States?
Zero. Unless the United States aids Israel in attacking Iran.
It's that simple.
I ask you the same question about Yemen.
What conceivable threat to the United States national security does Yemen pose because Trump spent a weekend, two weekends ago, bombing Yemen and killing civilians?
We're going to get a first-hand report on that later today from our friend Pepe Escobar, who was there.
What threat does Yemen pose?
Yemen is located at a very strategic juncture there.
Yemen poses a threat to Israel, to Israeli economy, because ships cannot go up the Red Sea if the Yemenis deter them, but poses no threat to the United States of America unless one considers that the U.S. is bound at the hip to Israel.
What threat does Israel pose to the peace and security of the countries of the Middle East?
Well, Judge, let's talk about nuclear.
There's a very interesting three-part series on Israeli TV explaining exactly how they stole the technology from the United States to build a nuclear weapon for deterrence.
So they're proud of that.
They have a deterrent.
The question is, why can't Iran have a deterrent?
Deterrent works both ways.
Having said that, that's logical, okay?
Not so logical is to understand why Iran has resisted, has said we will not make a nuclear weapon.
Now, this has nothing to do with nuclear fission or nuclear refined uranium up to 90%, although they're approaching that.
They need a weapon, and they need a missile to put the weapon on, and they have not been working on the weapon.
That is a consistent conclusion, unanimous, by U.S. intelligence agencies in November 2007, expressed with high confidence, and I would say that it played a major role in preventing Bush and Cheney from waging a war with Iran on their way out in 2008,
and that's pretty much proved by Bush's Own memoir, a couple of pages he must have written himself because he said, oh my God, this deprived me of the military option against Iran because, this is a quote, how could I possibly authorize a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities when the intelligence community says that the Iranians are not actively working on a nuclear weapon?
Oh, damn it.
We can't do it.
So this has a history.
The history is clear today.
All those years since 2007, the intelligence community has been saying, yeah, yeah, they got this fissure up to 90%.
And people like Blinken have been saying, oh, they're about a week, two weeks away from a nuclear weapon.
Well, that's made up stuff.
Because as far as I know, as actually Bill Burns, the CIA director on his way out, maybe to atone for his many sins.
He said, yeah, it's still the same.
They're not working on a nuclear weapon.
Now, there's a fatwa against it.
Now, what's a fatwa?
That's a religious prohibition.
It's more powerful than an encyclical that we're all familiar with, okay?
People obey that, okay?
Now, Judge, even during the cruel war where we were supporting Iraq against Iran, And the Iraqis were using chemical weapons.
That fatwa was enforced.
The Iranians were not using any kinds of WMD, weapons of mass destruction, especially not nuclear, because they didn't have them.
And neither did Iraq, as we finally found out, after the whole intelligence community was prostituted.
At the feet of Vice President Cheney to say, oh yeah, they're working on a nuclear program, which they had on paper, but they had no real nuclear.
What is the intelligence community today under Tulsi Gabbard telling President Trump about Iran's nuclear capabilities?
This is the acid test.
For Tulsi Gabbard, there used to be a thing called a National Intelligence Estimate.
This is the supreme genre of intelligence analysis and all of the communities were involved.
I led two of those myself, okay?
So I know what it's like.
There were 16 agencies back in 2007.
As I said, the decision was unanimous.
The decision was that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon.
At the end of 2003, you can put together, 2003 is when the US and the UK attacked Iraq and have not resumed working on a nuclear weapon, not on the uranium enrichment.
The uranium enrichment has increased, but it's going to still take them, most people say months, some people say a year.
To actually develop a nuclear weapon.
And are we sure of that?
Yeah, we're sure of that.
Even Bill Burns said we could detect that within a week or two.
So this is all, you know, it's very reminiscent of what happened to Iraq.
This time, I think it's very different because the Russians and we have a mutual incentive not to destroy the burgeoning relationship, the detente that Trump and Putin are really committed to now.
That, I think...
It's the supreme value in Russia's view.
And they're going to make sure that Trump understands that if he follows Israel in a kind of...
If he lets Israel start a war with Iran, and if the U.S. comes in, then this is the end of the burgeoning relationship.
They're going to go finish off Ukraine.
And, you know, these are high stakes.
Now, let me make a comparison.
Back during Vietnam, when a summit was set up to concretize and sign the arms control agreements, the ABM Treaty first and foremost, there was a big attack on Hanoi and Haiphong, okay? And most of the smart people, the people above my level in Washington at the same time.
That will sabotage this summit.
The Russians are going to tell Nixon and Kissinger, forget about it.
We have priority there with an international communist movement.
Guess what?
No. Their priority was to have a decent relationship with the U.S., more so since China had developed already this decent relationship.
Witness the fact that Nixon was in China in January of the same year.
So the Russians have their priorities.
In this case, I think the Russians are really hell-bent and determined to see if Trump is serious about creating this new detente.
And everything I hear from Wyckoff and others who seem to know which end is up, this is the priority now.
And so my guess is that the Russians will lean hard, not only on the U.S., but also on Israel and the Iranians and say, look.
Now, there's going to be consequences for this.
And besides, I have Chinese friends.
So Chinese friends really don't like the notion of having to do without oil coming through the Gulf.
As a matter of fact, the whole world will go into a deep depression if this happens.
I think Trump will finally wake up and say, all right, well, you know, I'm going to put America first.
I can't do that and put Israel first also.
I have a number of follow-up questions.
But before we do, Chris, can you put up that picture?
Prime Minister Netanyahu at the UN.
The famous one with the bomb.
Right, right.
Can you post that, Chris?
You'll be able to see how close they are to getting a nuclear weapon.
Is that nonsense, Ray?
Yeah. No, no, that's the uranium enrichment, okay?
That's necessary to create a bomb.
But what I'm saying here is they're really good at uranium enrichment.
And they have it up to 90%, which is what's required for a bomb in some cases.
And they may have enough for a couple of bombs, but they don't have the bomb, okay?
They haven't worked on the nuclear weapon.
And we would know that if they did.
So the whole thing is pretty much a charade.
And as this Bulletin of American Scientists article just three days ago says, you know, this is the height of hypocrisy.
The Israelis are advertising how clever they were in stealing technology to build a nuclear weapon for deterrence, okay?
And now they're bragging about it, and they are in a nuclear weapon country.
And this Iran is not a nuclear weapon country.
But, you know, the other thing is Iran has a deterrent that it never had before.
They're called hypersonic missiles, and they show that they could already reach Israel.
They have attacked Israel airfields.
What others are not looking at is not only the fatwa, but the fact that U.S. soldiers, U.S. air people, U.S. Navy ships in the area are fair game if Iran decides that there's no way to prevent a U.S.-Israeli attack.
So there's a deterrent right there.
And nobody wants that, at least unless some crazies working for Trump said, well, that may be a good thing.
How does the United States know how close Iran is or isn't to the acquisition of an actual bomb?
I mean, do we have agents on the ground in Tehran?
We don't.
The Israelis do.
I say we don't.
I just don't know that we have them there.
It'd be unlikely.
But there are cameras all over the place, Judge.
There are UN inspection regimes there that make it really, really difficult, virtually impossible, most people think, to not find out quickly, as Bill Burns, in a fit of honesty, admitted, yeah, we'll find out right away.
So when they ask a question, will they cheat?
Well, that's really important because that's doveray, proveray.
Trust but verify.
Yes, if they cheat, we'll know in a week and a half or so.
So it's really important.
I want you to listen to one of Mike Waltz's rants.
He's a very angry man.
But here he is yesterday on one of the talk shows.
Tell me what you think.
Cut number nine, Chris.
Full dismantlement.
Iran has to give up its program in a way that the entire world can see.
And this is, look, as President Trump has said, this is coming to a head.
All options are on the table.
And it is time for Iran to walk away completely from its desire to have a nuclear weapon.
And they will not and cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
Why is it that Israel Well, that's a sensible question, Trump, but you won't find that reflected in the New York Times or any major media.
The bugaboo, of course, is Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
Now, I don't know if Mike Walz knows this.
Hopefully someone will tell him.
But the intelligence community, as far as I know, and the most recent issuance a couple of months ago, Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon.
So this is kind of a Petrumpkin village here.
It's kind of pushing at an open door, you know?
Okay, don't get a nuclear weapon.
If they want to make up the pretext for a war, as they did with respect to Iraq, it all depends on my former colleague, whether this time they will fold and say, okay, for my promotion purposes or my bonus, I'll say that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, reversing what we've said since 2007.
That could happen.
We'll see if Tulsi Gabbard is able to make that.
How can the same mentality that says he wants the Nobel Peace Prize, that says he wants a grand reset with Russia and probably China, Brazil, and India as well, that is very impatient to end the war in Ukraine,
possibly be considering, I speak of the president, of course, possibly be considering Well, I hope now that Fiona Hill has been deprived of her security clearances, as have all my grandchildren.
I hope that people who don't know anything about this kind of stuff will not be in the mix this time.
He's blustering, okay?
I mean, if we're not used to Trump's bluster until he faces reality, we haven't learned anything from the way he operates.
So that's my take on this.
Trump is pretty much in charge, and what Mike Walsh may say, or what Kellogg might say, or what others subordinate to Trump might say, Rubio, for example, doesn't matter.
Amount to a hill of beans, okay?
It's what Trump says.
What Trump has said through his spokesman is that there's a renewed trust between him and President Trump.
That's big.
What he says is through his spokesman, Peskov, is that they're both very, very interested.
They're determined to create a new relationship between the two countries, in my view.
And of course, I'm a Russian expert, so I have a different view from others.
That is what's going to govern this thing.
And after the bluster is over, and after, hopefully, Tulsi Gabbard sticks to her guns and said, do an honest estimate on where Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.
Unless they all fold, Trump.
If they all fold, Judge, then we'll have a war.
But I don't think they will.
I think this is mostly bluster.
And, of course, Trump is not known for not blustering.
Whoa, there you go.
Yeah, here's the dangerous part.
Including Tulsi Gabbard, Trump is surrounded by arch-Zionists to a person.
Vance, Hegseth, Rubio, Walsh, that character, Sebastian Gorka, and even, regrettably, Tulsi Gabbard.
Might they be motivated by this desire to please the extreme elements in Prime Minister Netanyahu's ruling coalition?
Well, this is big, Judge.
This is war.
This is a war that we could not possibly win.
And, you know, unless the Pentagon has really gone out to lunch.
They and Tulsi, if she has the guts that I thought she had in the beginning, they'll stick to their guns and advise Trump, well, you know, you've scared them to death, but they're not going to relent.
And besides, Mr. Trump, you know, Bush and Cheney faced this exact same situation, and we told them that Iran was not working on a nuclear weapon, and that's still the case.
So, Mr. Trump, you can make the war if you want, but you're going to lose, and you'll be doing it on the same fault.
Pretenses that Bush and Cheney did on Iraq.
Do you foresee American troops on the ground or just American air power?
Well, that's just crazy.
Some people are talking about the U.S. invading Iran.
Oh, good Lord.
Iran's got, what, 85 million people?
Iran is not Iraq.
Iran is not Syria.
And besides, Iran doesn't want any part of this crap, okay?
So, you know, the Iranians have suffered under these sanctions.
The Russians are helping them.
So are the Chinese.
And if I didn't mention the Chinese already, that also is left out of the equation that Chinese depend heavily on Persian Gulf oil for their economy.
This would be a disruption that would cause a worldwide fracas and chaos.
We haven't seen since the interdiction of oil through the Persian Gulf way back in the 70s, I suppose.
Do you suppose that the intelligence community under Tulsi Gabbard is more intellectually honest in the information that it gets?
to the president, or do you suppose it's the same old, same old?
We'll tell him what we think he wants to hear.
I'm not talking about the men and women in the field.
I'm talking about management who decides what information makes its way to the Oval Office.
Yeah, we're talking about the analysis division now.
Right. And there are two signs.
One is that...
Danny Davis, an excellent, excellent intelligence and army armor specialist, was denied the place as Gabbard's deputy.
He knows which side is up, and he spoke out coherently and honestly about the threat that Israel poses to opposition in the world, particularly in the Middle East.
So he was denied.
The lobby came in and said, no, you can't.
We hear that Danny Davis is under consideration.
The answer is no.
And what happened?
It was no.
So that's one indication that she's going to have a real tough job.
She's going to have to have extraordinary guts, but she has the record.
She has what happened in Iraq.
She can tell the president, look, same fall pretenses and the same loss.
Now, on the other side of things, let's see what's going to say.
She has shown some guts, and let's see, there's some hope that it'll come through, this sensible approach.
Wyckoff, of course, is very transactional.
I think Wyckoff, if no one else, could get to the intelligence community.
Do you really think they're working on a nuclear weapon?
And, you know, I also think the other thought I had just now is, Look, this happened before when Israel and the U.S. were going to attack Iran together.
And they did.
It was last year.
What happened?
There was a CIA officer, part analyst officer in Afghanistan who saw what was going to happen.
And what he did, apparently, I don't know this for sure, He released the plans.
He released the results of the satellite photography.
He said, well, it's just going down just in three days.
That canceled.
That canceled that strike.
It made the Iranians more attentive to how they could prevent it, and the strike happened later, but it was much less successful.
I think there may be some honest whistleblowers still left in the intelligence community who realize there's stakes here.
Don't want the Americans to get in another war, which they cannot win.
Okay, it's a biggie, okay?
And I think there is a real risk for the administration that somebody honest will come out with these papers.
It's really easy to do.
It's a big sacrifice because they're almost surely going to get you as they've got this other fellow.
But I hope spring is eternal that there's enough honesty in the trenches.
And that Tulsi Gabbard would be so afraid of that honesty in the trenches that she'll feel compelled to tell the right story to Trump.
And so, you know, Trump has blustered before.
He doesn't, you know, it doesn't phase him at all to back off and say, oh, well, I didn't really mean we're going to destroy it.
And Mike Wallace and Rubio, for God's sake, tone it down now.
So this is my view.
Trump is in charge.
His priorities, what, Russia?
He doesn't want to get into a new war that he can't win.
If there's a modicum of sensibility, and I think we can still count on a modicum of it, with the intelligence community, they will say, hey, we don't want to get involved in this again.
We don't want to justify, in quotes, another war, this time three times as bad as Iraq, because Iran is three times as big and three times as powerful.
Thank you, Ray McGovern.
A pleasure, my dear friend.
Look forward to seeing you at the end of the week with that youngster, Larry Johnson.
Thanks, Judge.
All the best.
Have a good week.
You as well.
And the aforementioned Larry Johnson coming up at 11.30 today at 3 o'clock today.
Scott Ritter at 4 o'clock today, live from Yemen.
▲
Export Selection