All Episodes
Previous Next
June 11, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
23:55
Prof. Glenn Diesen : Does Europe Really Fear Russia?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, June 12, 2025.
My good friend, Professor Glenn Deason, joins us now.
Professor Deason, I want to talk to you about Europe and Russia and the comments made by President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer and Chancellor Merz.
But before we get there, do you see from your vantage point Professor Deason, any preparation for American war, American military attacking Iran, or is what you see just posturing for negotiations?
Well, it's hard to say.
I think the possibility is there for war.
So far, it does appear as if Trump doesn't actually want this war, who instead uses the threat of war.
To put max pressure on Iran, hoping that it will do as it's told.
The problem is that Iran sees that there's very little room to maneuver here, so none of this will work.
So the big risk is that the Israelis will use this as an opportunity when Iran fails to abide by what Trump demands, use this as a way of pushing Trump and thus the United States to go to war.
against Iran.
So it is a real possibility, sadly.
But again, it does seem to me that Trump at least aims to avoid this.
But it is The US State Department in the past 24 hours ordered embassies in the Middle East, not in Jerusalem, but in Iraq, and I'm not sure where else.
To send their non-essential civilian employees home.
some cost to the government, given the size of the defense budget, it's a drop in the bucket.
But is that significant or is this...
Well, it is significant.
This is what you would expect to see.
If the United States was getting ready for war.
So again, it all depends whether or not this is the US actually preparing for war or if it's, as you said, just posturing to try to escalate the pressure on Iran.
It becomes a bit of speculation because at this point it looks like it could go either way.
But it has to be pointed out, I'm hoping that no one in Washington, well, some are, but that Trump wouldn't be this mad because...
They wouldn't only strike back at, well, whoever attacks, but they would go after the bases of the United States and the entire region.
They could shut down a lot of the energy transiting.
And there's no exit strategy.
And again, the whole thing, the whole strategy of bombing Iran so it won't develop nuclear weapons, nothing.
We'll convince Iran more that it needs a nuclear deterrent than an attack on Iran.
I'm hoping that no one is mad enough to do this, but it remains to be seen.
Chris, let's play for Professor Deason, cut number two, and then immediately after, cut number 14. The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.
Not building a nuclear weapon.
And Supreme Leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.
So I'm trying to get everybody to think, let's don't do what we did in the 30s.
They're going to use a nuclear weapon if they get it.
Are they trying to build a nuclear weapon versus a peaceful nuclear power program?
Mr. Secretary, have the Iranians been trying to build a nuke?
There are plenty of indications that they have been moving their way towards something that would look a lot like a nuclear weapon.
So the first, of course, was Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testifying before the same Senate committee under oath.
The reference to the IC, of course, is to the intelligence community, which concluded unanimously, and then she fired the people that came to this conclusion, but they did conclude unanimously.
That Iran is not trying to build a nuclear weapon.
The second, of course, was kind of a dog-and-pony show between the most notorious warmonger in the United States Senate, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and acting like the puppeteer for the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth.
Does this tell you anything, Professor Deason?
Well, it only...
But the whole thing appears as if they're looking for, obviously, an excuse to bomb, because there's no indications that Iranians are pursuing a nuclear weapon.
I was in Tehran myself a few weeks ago, and my impression there was that But the thing is, one has to look at the kind of deals which are being negotiated.
If the United States wanted a deal with Iran, which limits its enrichment and prevents it from getting a nuclear weapon, such a deal could be reached because the Iranians have said we don't pursue nuclear weapons, as the U.S. intelligence agencies confirm.
So if it's about having transparency and then having...
However, whenever there's a negotiation, there's a tendency in Washington to link the civilian nuclear program to, for example, the range of Iran's ballistic missiles, its partnerships in the region, be it with Hezbollah, with Yemen, Hamas, so what they call the resistance.
So it's always linked to the power position of Iran.
The objective is to break Iran.
That's how it seems to me.
Because if it was only about the nuclear program, you could reach a deal.
But it had to be dealt with separately.
The reason why they bring in all of these other issues, which they know Iran is not going to accept any concessions on, then it simply looks like an excuse.
And also the idea that Iran should dismantle even its civilian nuclear program, this is...
But the same treaty also allows it, then, to develop civilian nuclear programs.
So on this, the Iranians are on the right side of international law.
Those arguing it's not allowed to have a civilian nuclear program, they're the ones in breach of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, because as a signatory, they have every right to do so.
So there's a lot of dishonesty, I think, around how these negotiations are taking place.
Has Israel signed that treaty?
No, they have not.
And that's the great irony.
Israel has not signed the treaty.
Well, not most likely.
guaranteed have a decent stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Yet it's the Israelis that are demanding that the Iranians should be bombed for a non-existent So it's all very absurd.
And again, when I was there a few weeks ago, I spoke to various diplomats and military commanders.
They understand if they would develop nuclear weapons, the Saudis would go the same way.
Other actors would do the same.
You would end up in a situation where everyone would lose, where more weapons does not always equal more security.
This is just common sense.
So I think that it's possible to deal with Iran as a rational actor.
But so far, a lot of these negotiations seem intent or determined to simply look for an excuse.
He wouldn't even be able to answer that.
No.
And again, it's not just that Israel has a nuclear weapon, but if you look at the nuclear powers around the world today, which of them are most likely to use one in the foreseeable future?
I think Israel will be at the top.
Again, but this is the problem whenever we negotiate these states, be it with Iranians, Russians, Chinese.
But this is a legacy of the unipolar world order.
If you want to make a deal with the other side, you should look for ways to address their security concerns as well.
So there's mutual compromise.
But there's never any efforts to address Iran's security concerns.
So I don't know exactly where the United States stands.
On the enrichment issue, the last statement from the president was no enrichment at all, but he's also said, and Mr. Witkoff, who of course is not an official of the United States government, but is this emissary, maybe he's the de facto Secretary of State.
I know Marco Rubio doesn't like hearing that, and I don't blame him.
The president and Mr. Witkoff have said at times that they can use uranium for civilian purposes.
But they must know that reducing the amount of enrichment, whatever it is, 3.2, 3.9, down to zero, is a non-starter in the negotiation.
It's the moral equivalent of the Ukrainians asking for NATO in Ukraine in their negotiations.
It's an absolute...
So back to the negotiations with Iran.
The Americans must know that.
What country would denude itself like that?
It would make any sense.
Firstly, diplomatically, it would be humiliation.
Economically, it would deprive them of a very important energy source.
Despite what Trump says, they don't simply have enough oil, so they don't need nuclear power.
You do need a mix.
This shouldn't be controversial.
And lastly, of course, the security measures, which is demanded on Iran, that is to give up
Yeah, common, constant threat since 1979 from the US and Israel.
You need that deterrent.
This is not taking the side of the Iranians.
This is just common sense.
So there's no way they can ever accept any of these things being demanded on them.
But that's what I'm saying.
If you want a nuclear deal to prevent proliferation, to have transparency and trust, it can be achieved.
First, recognize that they do have the right to civilian program.
And then second, don't link this civilian program to all other quarrels that there is with Iran.
Because then you're going to end up in a situation where you can try to sell to the public that Iran doesn't want to make a deal.
But it's only because it's been linked to all these external issues, which has nothing to do with the nuclear program.
All right, let's switch gears.
Excuse me, to Europe and Russia.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said unequivocally, we'll play the clip for you, that the British were behind the drone attacks on Russian military.
In fact, he said he was 100% certain of it.
He also believed that by inertia, because he knows how MI6 and CIA are wedded to each other.
That the U.S. was probably involved, but he was certain about the British.
I want to play this clip for you and then ask you how you read the relationship between the British, the French, the Germans on one side and the Russians on the other.
Chris, cut number eight.
the Ukrainian side is doing everything possible but it would be absolutely helpless without the support I was tempted to say Anglo-Saxons but probably without Saxons just without the support of the British although you never know probably by inertia some US special forces would be involved in that but the British actually are behind all those things I'm 100% sure Would
he have said 100% sure the British were behind it without certainty, without intel demonstrating conclusively and unequivocally that the Brits were behind it?
I'm guessing he has some good reasons to suspect this.
But the British have been really, I would say, the most aggressive ones here.
They go further, especially their special forces.
Go further than their American counterparts.
So the British are very much front and center in this proxy war against Russia.
And there's a lot of evidence behind there which suggests that it's very unlikely that intelligence services of the US and Britain was not involved.
Keep in mind that we learned the day after the coup in 2014 that the first thing that And as American media has confirmed as well, this relied on rebuilding Ukrainian security services from scratch to make sure that there were loyal allies against Russia since they traditionally have been very closely allied with Russia.
A few weeks ago was also another story from the New York Times, which outlined exactly how close or how deeply involved the United States had been in this war.
That is almost the decision making that we're planning was made by the United States out of Germany.
So we know how close...
So if this operation has been planned for 18 months, which includes a whole year out of the Biden administration, are we going to really say that the United States had no knowledge of this?
I mean, it doesn't make any sense at all.
So I think that it's quite obvious that there are Western powers involved.
If there are Western powers, you can To what extent the Americans are involved, I suspect the war were involved, but perhaps the Russians are toning down the reference to the Americans, given that they're making some advancements in negotiations.
The British have exposed their own assets, whether it's human beings or military equipment, to lawful attack by the Russians.
Yeah.
Well, this is the problem.
We moved a bit away from the whole idea of proxy war.
There's a lot of direct war going on now.
And again, this is not just a regular attack, even though an attack on Russian cities would be a reckless escalation.
But this is an attack on Russia's nuclear forces.
It's nuclear deterrent.
What does this signal?
Does the counterpart I mean, why would anyone go to this length?
We're aware that the great powers there are very paranoid about their nuclear deterrent.
If someone tomorrow began bombing and attacking America's nuclear deterrent, you could be very sure that their worst fears would be dictating the policies which would follow.
So here is...
This is Senator Lindsey Graham, the most aggressive proponent of war in the United States Congress.
I think you're familiar with him, as repellent as he can be.
Interrogating, but really answering for himself, answering his own questions.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and General Cain, who is the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is the highest ranking.
This is somewhat humorous, but also dangerous.
But I'd like your thoughts on it.
Chris, cut number 16. Is Putin going to stop in Ukraine?
I don't believe he is, sir.
What do you think, Secretary?
Is he going to stop?
Remains to be seen, Senator.
Well, he says he's not.
You know, this is the 30s all over.
It doesn't remain to be seen.
He tells everybody around what he wants to do.
Are you familiar with his military buildup in terms of armaments?
It's well beyond what we need to do to take Ukraine.
Listen, I think I like what you're doing.
I just think we've got to get this stuff right.
Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
They'll still use it.
They're homicidal maniacs who are religious Nazis.
China is an expansionist power who will take Taiwan if we don't deter them.
Russia will dismember Ukraine and keep going if we don't stop them.
When did President Putin say he was interested in dismembering Ukraine and taking other countries?
I would defy Senator Graham to answer that.
Do you know?
You monitor this stuff.
We monitor this stuff.
No, this makes no sense.
This is transpiring in his head.
There's no such evidence.
This whole idea that this is a campaign after Ukraine is taken, they will move on to the rest of Europe.
Keep in mind that back until 2014, Russia had never even laid claim to Krasnopoulos They recognized the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
What they did was, once the coup was there and they saw what was coming, that they would eventually be pushed out of Crimea, where they were renting the naval base, their Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol, they knew that they were going to get kicked out and replaced by NATO after a while.
So they seized Crimea.
Even the worst anti-Russian war hawks wouldn't So in other words, it doesn't mean that you have to say it's legal or justified.
It just means that this is a reaction.
It's not an expansionist objective.
And furthermore, keep in mind that the whole Minsk agreement was premised on the idea that the Donbass region will be reintegrated into Ukraine if, So there's no indications that territorial conquest was the motivation behind any of this conflict.
Indeed, this has become a symptom of the conflict, which began...
due to a broken European security architecture.
So it's...
No, I think Lindsey Graham, he...
So I think I wouldn't go to him for a fact.
But someone should have pushed back and asked, though, that being said, what exactly did Putin say about taking more European powers?
I know you're in Norway and not in Great Britain, but do you have a feeling if the British public wants its government picking a fight with a country 100 times the size of Britain?
It's something strange within the European countries.
The leaderships now, they are completely obsessed with Russia.
Starmer is often criticized because he's not paying attention to the economy, domestic issues.
Everything is about Ukraine these days.
Like Lindsey Graham, they will also cite Russia's military buildup.
But, again, this also has to be seen in a context.
Currently, a lot of NATO countries have attacked Russia directly with these long-range missiles.
The British-French are talking about sending troops into Ukraine.
They're talking about fighting the Russians.
politicians are.
So given all of this, it would make sense for Russia to So again, there's two ways to enhance your security.
You can deter, but also reassure the opponent.
We don't reassure Russia of anything anymore.
We keep more or less threatening it with war.
So why wouldn't they develop It makes sense.
But I've seen the same rhetoric from the Germans.
I heard a German general say, oh, look at the Russians.
They're building up a lot of military force close to the Finnish border.
That proves that they have plans after they're done with Ukraine.
But again, this is just ludicrous.
We expanded NATO into Finland.
Now, Finland, which was the largest success story of neutrality, is now NATO's largest front line against Russia.
The Russians revived a military regiment there.
To restore its deterrent against Finland now that they're not a neutral country anymore.
So we do these things, then we see the reaction coming, and we pretend as if it happened in a vacuum that is an indication of imperial ambitions.
It's extremely dishonest.
But, you know, this is where we are.
Professor Glenn Deeson, thank you, my dear friend.
Thank you for accommodating my schedule and thank you for letting me pick your brain.
We look forward to seeing you again next week as usual on the show.
All the best.
Look forward to it.
Thanks, Judge.
Thank you.
Coming up today at 2 o 'clock this afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs at 3 o 'clock, Professor John Mearsheimer at 4 o 'clock.
We think we found him.
▲
Export Selection