All Episodes
Previous Next
April 21, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
21:57
Scott Ritter : Can Iran Survive Trump?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I mean, by shutting down one frustrating course of action, you're going to open up a whole new bag of worms when it comes to Europe.
So we'll see what happens.
If the president turns off the spigot of military aid, and remember the legislation authorized by Congress in the Biden administration, one of the authorizations was very late in his term.
is says subject to the discretion of the president.
So the president can turn that spigot off whenever he wants.
If he turns that spigot off, what about General Cavoli and all of his people in Germany planning and plotting the military assault?
And what about American intel on the ground in Ukraine and Russia?
Do they stop as well?
General Cavoli's people are already not engaged in the operational planning.
That was being done through the Ramstein contact group.
That was the logistics end of it, but that fed into the whole cooperation.
I think the British have taken over the lead for that.
And so the operational planning right now is being done with a British lead, French support in America, sort of hanging in the background, which is a frustrating place for Cavoli to be because he is the...
You know, the commander of NATO forces.
And yet he has to take a backseat to this plan because of his status as an American.
We are providing intelligence.
My understanding, though, this is primarily defensive in nature.
That is the early warning notifications of Russian missile launches so that the Ukrainians can queue their air defense systems.
But we're no longer providing the targeting data that was used by the Ukrainians to strike Russia.
With their attacking missiles, their HIMARS missiles, or even, you know, with their artillery systems.
And so, you know, there's been a throttling down, a significant throttling down of support to Ukraine.
Before we jump to Iran, Pete Hegseth seems to be in some hot water again.
The New York Times reports, and it cites its sources.
As three people that he fired, okay, they're not happy that he fired them.
They were very, very close to them.
They're not low-level people.
The allegation is that, yet again, he posted sensitive military attack plans in a non-secure site to which his wife, his brother, and his personal lawyer had access.
They were part of the group receiving the text.
And then, when first confronted with that, at the White House Easter Egg Roll, okay, they do these silly things, I don't know why he was there, but at the White House Easter Egg Roll, he said this, cut number seven.
You know, what a big surprise that a bunch of, a few leakers get fired and suddenly a bunch of hit pieces come out from the same media that peddled the Russia hopes, won't give back their Pulitzers.
They got Pulitzers for a bunch of lies.
Pulitzer's for a bunch of lies and on hoaxes time and time and time again.
And as they peddle those lies, no one ever calls them on it.
See, this is what the media does.
They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations.
Not going to work with me.
An anonymous smears from disgruntled former employees on old news?
Doesn't matter.
This is why we're fighting the fake news media.
This is why we're fighting slash-and-burn Democrats.
This is why we're fighting hoaxters.
Hoaxters. No, no.
This group right here.
Full of hoaxters.
That peddle anonymous sources from leakers with axes to grind.
And then you put it all together as if it's some news story.
Did you hear in there he posted the military plans on this non-secure website?
If he did post them there...
He jeopardized fighter pilots.
How do they feel about a sarcastic response like the one we just witnessed?
I can't speak for...
Our military, like everything else, has become very politicized, and there are...
The military is not supposed to be politicized.
It's supposed to be apolitical, nonpartisan, which means that they need to look at everything through a professional lens.
And a key aspect of being professional is being able to adhere to, you know, Standard security protocols on how to handle classified information.
And if you have the Secretary of Defense, who is the number one blowing through these protocols, doing whatever he wants, doing things that would get anybody else fired, court-martialed, maybe even jail time, and trying to sit in there and taking no responsibility for it,
this is very bad.
A very bad thing for morale in the Department of Defense.
As I said, there's going to be those officers who love Trump right or wrong, but that's not their job.
That's their personal preference, but their job is to be loyal to the Constitution and loyal to the United States, not to a president.
And if Pete Hegseth is guilty of these, and as you said, there was no denial there.
The source is when we know exactly who the three sources are.
So, you know, these are very specific allegations that seem to be corroborated with hard evidence.
You know, the best he could say, it's an old story, perhaps.
But, you know, the statute of limitations of security violations is still, you know, in play, Mr. Hegseth.
And I can guarantee you that had, you know, Major Scott Ritter done something that stripped my security clearances, there would be an investigation and I could be facing jail time.
What is your take, now I'm transitioning over to Iran, on what happened over the weekend?
It sounds, I think in Rome, with the negotiations, it sounds as though from the perspective of the Iranian foreign minister that we're almost back to JCPOA, which is where Whitcoff was the first time.
It sounds as though they have reached...
What would have been if you were around your level, the technical level of enrichment and equipment and things like that?
Am I misreading this because I'm optimistic and want a peaceful settlement rather than a Netanyahu-led attack?
No, I think whether or not, I think the baseline is JCPOA, which means going back to 2015, to enrich up to three point.
6%, 3.7%, enough for the fuel rods that are used in the Boucher nuclear reactor.
And then that this would be sized appropriately, meaning their enrichment capacity would be sized appropriately to the need.
I think also one thing that would be included here is no...
No sunset clauses, meaning the ability to expand haphazardly without restraint, will be removed, because that was what caused Donald Trump to shut down the JCPOA to begin with, were the sunset clauses.
But I think Iran has made it clear that a red line for it is, meaning they must be allowed to have an enrichment capability.
And initially, Steve Witkoff had talked about just this, 3.65%, 3.7%.
He subsequently walked that back as pressure came in from the Israelis, etc., for zero enrichment.
But I think zero enrichment, of course, was the Obama starting point, too, the basics of a deal here.
And it's a good deal.
It's a smart deal.
If the Iranians are actually willing to do this, then this is what I've said they've had to do all along.
And it's...
A very, very good move on their part, and it's a move to buy on.
If Trump can get this deal, limiting it to 3.6%, 3.7%, scaled to the actual need of Iran with no sunset clauses, no ability to amass enrichment, which is necessary to enrich for the current fuel requirements,
and you can even maybe weave into some Some things with the Russians where they remove enriched uranium in excess.
So better deal.
And it's a deal that doesn't time itself out with sunset clauses.
So it's a deal that could actually be talked about in long term.
And we would have peace.
That's the issue.
If Trump's issue is nuclear weapons, then this deal that they appear to be on the cusp of reaching in Rome, that's the solution.
And I'm very optimistic with it.
It doesn't mean we're out of the woods yet.
Israel will do everything they can to trip this up.
You already hear the Israelis saying, laterally attack the Iranian nuclear program, a limited attack.
I don't see the United States allowing that to happen, but the Israelis were going for zero option because they believed that the Iranians would never accept that, and that would allow the United States.
To bomb Iran.
This deal that is shaping up, it's not what Netanyahu wants.
But he's not calling the shots.
Donald Trump is.
And this will be a test of Donald Trump's in Washington, D.C. because he will have to push through a lot of obstacles to get this deal.
Because there's a lot of people in Washington, D.C. who are taking the Israeli side, a lot of lobbyists, a lot of think tanks, etc.
But I will just tell you, somebody who's been following this issue for a long time, this negotiation path that Steve Witkoff is on, winning type stuff, this is the kind of stuff that the world should applaud because we are walking away from a war that would have been devastating for all parties involved.
Well, I was going to ask you what you thought Netanyahu would do.
I don't know.
Does Trump have the ability?
I guess it would either be moral suasion or, hey, Bibi, you're not getting any delivery of military equipment anymore.
Does Trump have the strength to say to him, no, hands off Iran.
This is the deal we want.
This is the deal we're taking.
Or taking into account all the other factors, the lobby, the donor class, all that stuff.
Will Trump cave?
That's the million-dollar question.
I do think that Trump has what it takes to stand up to Benjamin Netanyahu.
He doesn't like Benjamin Netanyahu.
Again, remind people that he posted two clips of Jeffrey Sachs that were very critical of Benjamin Netanyahu, in particular how Netanyahu and Israel got America caught up in Middle Eastern conflicts that we don't want.
And we don't want a war in Iran.
And here we have a situation where Netanyahu, we don't need, we're actually negotiating a good deal to prevent this war, to say no to Netanyahu.
Whether or not he has the ability to stand up to the domestic pressure is another issue.
I mean, he has created his own set of problems by doing...
Everything at once.
I mean, we have this whole tariff issue right now and a potential or an actual trade war with China where we need different players to come in and open the door for people having leverage on Trump saying, hey, we'll help you here, but you need to do X, Y, and Z. And it could lead to a situation where he doesn't have the same kind of domestic political resolve.
But in terms of standing up to Benjamin Netanyahu, this is a no-brainer.
He'll just tell Netanyahu no.
Okay, so you mentioned Jeff Sachs, who's on the program in half an hour.
Jeff just sent us a report from something called Drop Sight News.
Now, I never heard of this person.
It appears to be a woman named Mirav Seren, M-E-R-A-V-C-E-R-E-N, a joint Israeli-American citizen, a former Israeli...
official in the IDF has just been appointed by Trump to the National Security Council.
Why would we have a former Israeli defense
Well, we had Fiona Hill for a while.
She was British and also designed this.
The National Security Council is,
Even though it says Trump appointed, I believe the person responsible for this is Michael Waltz, who is a very pro-Zionist, pro-Israeli person, and he's building his team.
And the president will probably sign off on it because, to be honest, that team doesn't matter.
Donald Trump will do what Donald Trump wants to do.
All right, so this piece that Jeff sent from this...
ResponsibleStateCraft.org DropSiteNews.
I've never heard of this.
Former Israeli official leading Israel-Iran desk at the White House.
What does that mean?
Israel-Iran desk.
That desk is responsible for coordinating all policy in the United States about Israel and Iran.
So when you have an interagency meeting, The National Security Council is an advisory body.
The National Security Advisor is the advisor.
The President will issue directives.
The National Security Advisor will then convene.
First of all, he'll convene his desk officers for a program.
He'll call in the principals.
He is a principal.
That means the principals are the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, etc.
And he'll say, this is what the president wants.
And then the principals will go back to their different groups.
And each one of them has their own analytical bodies, advisory bodies.
And they will come up with something.
They'll bring it in to the National Security Council.
And if it's Israeli-Iran related, it'll go through the Israeli desk.
So this person will be responsible for receiving input and then shape that's then taken to the deputy level for further refinement.
The shepherd of Israeli-Iranian policy on behalf of Michael Waltz.
It's a very influential position.
Today, this person is not a policy maker.
They're a policy shaper.
They do have the ability to emphasize certain things over others, but their job is to receive data from different people and then to coordinate as you turn this into.
Why should that job be held by a former IDF person?
And how could anybody possibly claim that that human being has American interests at heart or can be fair between Iran and Israel when she's a former IDF official?
I don't think anybody's claiming that.
I haven't heard anybody claim that at all.
It's the same thing when you go to the State Department and you take a look at the State Department Foreign service officers or the civil servants who manage U.S.-Israeli issues.
Every single one of them is affiliated with American Jewish, American Zionist advisory groups.
They are all pro-Israel.
Some of them have dual citizenship.
The Israelis have...
For a long time, hijacked this.
They really made a concerted effort in this after the 1970s and 80s, where they pushed out the Arabists of people who cut their teeth in the streets of the various Arab capitals in the region.
You know, back in, I guess, the 70s when we were trying to sell AWACS to Saudi Arabia, that's when the pro-Israeli lobby said, we have to take control of this.
And they began to go to war against the Arabists that existed in the State Department and elsewhere, and they pushed them out.
And now they've basically hijacked the policymaking apparatus of the United States.
This isn't unique to Donald Trump.
During Joe Biden, it was the same.
During Obama, it was the same.
The national security and foreign policy, you know, influencing departments for some time now.
All right.
Before we go, two retired colonels disagreeing with each other.
I would like your input on this.
Chris, Colonel Davis and Colonel McGregor.
What nation on the planet can have their embassy destroyed in another country and to have an assassination in their capital city on an inauguration and not go to war with somebody?
Yet that's exactly what Iran didn't do because they don't have the power to do it.
So that should tell you...
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
That's a fundamentally false statement.
Which part?
False, false, false.
They don't have the power to go to war?
You haven't looked carefully at Iran.
Iran's arsenal of missiles is enormous.
It could flatten Israel in a day.
They have the power to go to war.
They have chosen repeatedly to avoid war.
And I've said this a thousand times.
No one in the Middle East is interested in a war except Israel and the United States.
Peace.
What are your thoughts?
Colonel McGregor is 100% correct.
First of all, You know, what the Israelis did was an affront against Iran.
But the Iranian response, which was initially Operation True Promise, the initial attack, and then True Promise 2, was to establish Iran's ballistic missile deterrence as a reality.
So Colonel Davis is 100% wrong.
Iran did attack Israel.
But they did so in a way not to destroy Israel, because as Colonel McGregor says, they don't want to go to war, but they had to do something.
The idea that Iran didn't do anything after their consulate was bombed in Damascus or after Hania was assassinated on inauguration day in Tehran is just absurd.
Iran did everything.
Iran showed that the ballistic missile defenses of Israel were null and void, would be penetrated like a hot knife through butter, even when reinforced with America's considerable ballistic missile defense systems, including the satellites, the ships, the aircraft.
The Iranian, not because they were seeking to destroy Israel, but they were seeking to create ballistic missile-based deterrence, which they have done.
Colonel McGregor is 100% correct.
If Iran did to, they could launch sufficient ballistic missile capacity at Israel that would do...
Extensive damage, perhaps nation-killing damage.
So it's not that Iran can't do it.
It's that Iran doesn't want to do it because Iran's not looking for a war.
Exactly the point that Colonel McGregor made.
For those that are unfamiliar with your new book, tell us a little bit about it, Scotty.
Well, the book is The Highway to Hell.
It's a book that discusses nuclear war.
I cover from the period of 2015 until 2024.
And you get to track in real time the analysis that's done because this book is a collection of articles that have been written from 2015 until 2024 about You know, America's arms control policy, about, you know, how we approach INF Treaty,
getting out of it, how we approach the New START Treaty, etc.
It's written with a, you know, each article is written from the fresh perspective of the time that it was happening.
And so this isn't about a historian looking backwards in time, re-interpreting events.
You're getting the raw...
You know, emotion of the moment, and you get to track it as you bring it up to the present day.
And the goal of the book is to, again, educate and inform people about the dangers of nuclear weapons, the risk of nuclear war, and the absolute necessity for arms control and disarmament.
It's a terrific book, as you know.
At your request, I read it and wrote a blurb, which you published, and I was thrilled to do so.
Not just because we're friends and colleagues, but because the book is profoundly...
Profoundly worth reading.
Scotty, thank you very much, my dear friend.
Always a pleasure.
Thanks for accommodating my schedule today.
Thanks for having me on.
Of course.
▲
Export Selection