All Episodes
Previous Next
June 11, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
30:43
[SPECIAL EDITION] Alastair Crooke : How Close Is War With Iran?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, June 12, 2025.
Welcome here.
Alistair Crook joins us for this special edition of Judging Freedom.
Just how close is war between the United States and Iran?
But first this.
The same experts that predicted gold at $3,200 an ounce now predict gold at $4,500 or more in the next year.
What's driving the price higher?
Paper currencies.
All around the world, they are falling in value.
Big money is in panic as falling currencies shrink the value of their paper wealth.
That's why big banks and billionaires are buying gold in record amounts.
As long as paper money keeps falling, they'll keep buying and gold will keep rising.
So do what I did.
Call my friends at Lear Capital.
You'll have a great conversation.
And they'll send you very helpful information.
Learn how you can store gold in your IRA tax and penalty free or have it sent directly to your doorstep.
There's zero pressure to buy and you have a 100% risk-free purchase guarantee.
It's time to see if gold is right for you.
Call 800-511-4620.
800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you.
Alistair Crook, welcome here, my dear friend.
I know this is not your usual time of day or your usual day of the week, but events have made your presence much needed and I truly and deeply appreciate it.
I have a lot of questions for you and I'm sure you have a lot of analysis for us.
On Iran and the Middle East and whether or not the United States is truly preparing for war.
But before we get there, I have to ask you one or two questions about Russia.
I particularly want you to see a clip which we did not have for you when you were here on Monday because it hadn't yet taken place.
He hadn't yet said it.
This is Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
It's a very brief clip, it's about 25 seconds, saying he's 100% certain that MI6 perpetrated the drone attacks on Russia.
He doesn't use the phrase MI6, but we know what he's talking about.
I'd like your thoughts on this.
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 For
him to say, I'm 100% sure, does that tell you he has seen intel, or is this a PR statement by the Kremlin?
Oh, almost certainly, he has the evidence of this, and he has the intelligence of showing that.
This is not PR, this is intelligence.
And he's saying that.
Now, what does that mean?
Does it mean that MI6 is running things?
I would say that it's possible and very likely, and he's right, that MI6 could be fronting, that the British are fronting this.
Perhaps the Americans are happy to sort of draw back a little bit on this so that it doesn't seem too obvious that they're engaged in a direct war with Russia, because that's still sensitive in the United States, that sense of it.
So it may be that is the case, but nothing moves.
Between London without consultation with the CIA in one form or another.
And, you know, the head of the CIA station in London, I don't know the situation today or whatever, but it always used to be that he or she, it was often a she, simply could walk into Downing Street, into Prime Minister's office, and pass a message or tell him what they wanted done.
So, I mean, it's very close.
they have the ability to go straight in and talk.
And so it's quite likely that, you know, at that level, you know, they said, well, why don't you, you know, I think it's easier for us if you front it a little bit, because there are, if you like, tensions in the United States, the United States doesn't...
So you can take the lead and we'll back it up.
And I think probably that's what we're seeing there.
Just the point is that absolutely the bedrock of British policy with the Five Eyes and all this period has been that there should be absolute cooperation.
Between the intelligence services of the US and the UK.
And that is more than any geopolitical or diplomatic priority.
That is at the bedrock of British foreign policy.
If that is still so, and we have no reason to disbelieve it, and Secretary of Defense Hegseth says under oath the United States didn't know about this.
That could probably mean only one of two things.
Either his underlings or his colleagues didn't tell him, or he's not being truthful.
Well, you know, many of these things, all of this type of operation has what you've heard say, plausible deniability.
Well, what does that mean?
Well, I mean, it means people are going to deny it.
That's what plausible deniability.
And when you put up a message to ministers or to the foreign secretary or to the Secretary of State in America, you have to outline how the United States or Britain can deny involvement in a military operation or a special forces operation.
And then they provide the arguments about why and how you can deny it.
So it's built into the system, this denial.
So I don't know exactly what was the situation with President Trump, but I mean, having been seen these sort of things in the past, I think what has happened is he'll have sat with his advisers, General Kellogg and the others there, and Kellogg would say to him, "Listen, Mr.
It's going to really change the paradigm of this war.
And you don't need to know the details.
You don't need to know the deals.
You can deny it and say you didn't know anything about it.
That's fine.
And that's how it's done.
Last question on this subject matter.
Are British assets...
Oh, yes.
I mean, this is war.
I mean, you know, this is very much the case.
If British forces are deliberately killing Russians, Russian civilians or others, then Russia has a right under international law, law of war, to attack British, Yeah, certainly.
Switching to Iran now, what is the status of the uranium enrichment issue?
We have heard from Mr. Woodcoff, both sides, from his mouth, that the United States is on both sides of this issue, that it won't permit any enrichment whatsoever, period.
He knows it's a non-starter and he knows the Iranians cannot.
We've also heard him say that enrichment can stay at the level where it is now for a certain time period, as long as it stays at that level and international authorities can examine it.
As recently as last night at the Kennedy Center, the president said no enrichment whatsoever.
Can we get a finger on where the United States stands on this and why the United States would seek to negotiate for something that's an Absolute non-starter.
Well, where we are, this was Wednesday night.
Today is Thursday, Wednesday night.
Witkoff delivered some of his remarks at the annual gala of the United Hazala Organization held on Wall Street in New York, attended by about 1,100 guests, including people like Mario Maddelson and many others like that.
And he said, "Iran must never be allowed to enrich uranium or develop any nuclear capabilities.
A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel.
Iran possessing large quantities of missiles is no less an existential threat than a nuclear threat.
And it is an existential threat to the US." To the world and to all Gulf states, end of quote.
And that was what he said, as reported, at this gala meeting of this aid organization, United Hassala.
I mean, I saw a few videos and people seemed to be almost dancing.
In glee with what he was saying, getting up and sort of slapping everyone and almost, I mean, you know, dancing in the aisles in happiness, what he's saying.
So you asked me where we are.
Well, I think that we're going backwards in these negotiations.
If that is the position of the United States, we must assume.
He said that very carefully, as you heard.
I mean, these words were put together.
Not in a haphazard way.
Set this very carefully.
This is the first time I've heard from any American official, or he's not an American official, any person purporting to speak for the American government, that Iran's possession of missiles, non-nuclear missiles, is an existential threat to the United States.
Exactly, yes.
I mean, this is absurd.
This is irrational.
What is he telling?
that he's going to try and negotiate a position where Iran will destroy its own weaponry when a madman like Netanyahu every day is threatening to attack?
I mean, if you go back to From the JCPOA.
And he also brought it up.
He didn't put it in terms that these missiles were a threat to the United States.
He was just saying that the question of the nuclear thing was one thing, but why he was withdrawing from JCPOA was because of the missile threat and because of Iran's support for these missiles.
So-called terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Yehudis.
So it's been in the background for some time.
Now it's coming out.
So I think I would just ask, I mean, we have to work out.
The key question is, is this reality TV?
Is this Trump wanting to divert attention from something else?
Is this real?
Because if so, it seems to be completely divorced from reality.
I mean, the whole project has become divorced from reality.
And I would say that this follows exactly what we've seen in Russia with this.
If you like an approach to Russia, totally divorced from any understanding of what is Russia, understanding of the situation, military situation.
And nonetheless, it has been pursued in the hope that this pressure would somehow produce a lucky result and Putin would agree to being, if you like, imprisoned in a cage of a ceasefire to await a further round of war in a few years' time.
Well, that's not going to happen.
But it's the same thing here.
If this is considered to be pressure, If they think this is going to get Iran to say, oh my goodness, I mean, you know, we better, you know, give in and do what Mr. Trump says, they've got it as wrong as the team has got Russia wrong.
They do not understand it's going to redouble the Iranian Determination, the resolve of not just the Iranian government, but the Iranian people.
You know, you see polls now coming out in Iran, where 69% of Iranians say, "Look, we think it's time to go for a nuclear weapon." I mean, with all this pressure.
We see coming.
Now, this is time.
Let's go for it.
Let's do it.
I mean, I'm not saying that that's the position of the government.
It isn't.
Nothing has changed in that respect.
But I'm just saying the temper of people, the resolve, and it's similar to what we've seen, the anger in Russia and the feeling that now is the time we just have to push on.
And I think so it could be that this is seen.
by the team as pressure and we will be able to use this, the threat of Israel doing an attack on Iran.
By the way, They don't have the planes or the capability.
They don't have the tanker aircraft to refuel enough aircraft to make this realistic.
You need a lot of aircraft in the air to suppress air defenses.
Each one of those needs refueling perhaps once or twice during the journey, wherever it goes, through Iraq or something like this.
It's not easy.
Now, the thing is, it's become also, you know, for many Iranians and for the leaders, this round of negotiations with America is not straightforward at all.
Because they say, if we do a deal, supposing we do a deal with America, whatever it be, I'm not saying what it would contain, but if we did a deal with America, why would that benefit Iran now?
Because so much...
And then after 2015, the United States changed that and sanctioned them not under the nuclear issue, but under the Palestinian issue.
And we've had the same with the CAATSA.
And the human rights, if you like, sanctions, and the personal sanctions for terrorism on the IRGC.
Now, and also since that period, Congress has decreed that any deal between Iran and the United States now must by law be approved by Congress and that with a two-thirds majority, So, you know, will Iranians really see a lifting of sanctions?
Whatever they agree to, if they agree to everything, would they see a real lifting of sanctions?
You know, I'm not going to pretend I can give a categoric judgment, but I think most Iranians are deeply skeptical.
Is the United States Preparing for war against Iran.
I mean, in the past 48 hours we've seen these evacuations of American embassies in the Middle East.
Do you think that this is an indication of imminent war or some sort of a ploy for negotiation purposes?
Well, as I say, it could be, but it doesn't really matter which it is.
Which is a strange answer to give you.
It doesn't really matter because if it's a negotiation ploy, it will fail.
And if it's a ploy to prepare for war, well, that's going to fail too.
So, I mean, it doesn't really change much, whichever it is.
Yes, I think they're preparing.
Clearly, Israel is preparing too.
They are preparing very fast.
I mean, they are delighted.
But as I've tried to say several times in this, even America cannot attack the Iranian nuclear bunkers.
Well, they're more than bunkers.
They're hidden in mountains of the nuclear Israeli, the Iranian nuclear deterrence.
If you like to get the biggest bunker bomber possible, the GBU-5797, which is the biggest they have and which Israel doesn't have, it can only be launched, if you like, by a heavy aircraft, by a B-2, and it will only penetrate to 66 meters.
Even a nuclear weapon, And the Iranian, if you like, centrifuges, which are all based on, if you like, a special absorbent base that can withstand an earthquake of six on the Richter scale,
but they are literally Half a mile beneath.
They are more than 800 meters down.
And there are five of them.
And it would take about 15 bombs, 12 to 15 of the big bunker bombs, or even the nuclear bombs, to get anywhere near them, if they do at all.
And that would mean you're talking about six or seven.
Aircraft, B2s, American B2s.
But there are five of them.
So you want to have all of these bombs five times over.
So you'd need 30 B2 bombers.
And America doesn't have that.
It doesn't even own that many.
It owns much less.
I mean, at most 10 or 12 or something, but it doesn't have 30 to spare on this.
So the Iranians are cautious.
Now, I think there's one possibility that needs to be aired, which is that it's possible that, you know, Trump is all about drama and everything else.
I mean, he might think he's able to do a sort of Yemen exercise whereby he says to The Iranians, look, we'll bomb a target.
Look, you line up an empty IRGC, you know, headquarters, no one in it, and we'll bomb that.
And then you'll bomb a radar system in Israel.
And there was a great victory.
The Iranians have backed off and, you know, we're on the path to success.
The Iranians won't buy that.
They won't go into that.
Not at all.
They are feeling very confident.
I was speaking to Tehran today.
They're very confident.
They're not at all fussed, they think.
And I would say, following military analysts that I much admire, Will Shriver, who says, basically, pity the country that attacks Iran.
Pity the country, Israel or America, that attacks Iran because they're going to pay a huge price, and Israel will.
And we've left out the other great element in this, which is really important, is Iran claims that it has managed to steal a cache of nuclear secrets from Israel, which include the complete, if you like, target range.
of their most sensitive nuclear sites in Israel, all the details of those, and they also have a treasure trove of other intelligence.
Now, I haven't seen it and wouldn't understand it probably if I did, but it's been seen by some Farsi-speaking bits of it, not all of it, because they've had this for some time.
But it also shows, or purports to show, that the IEA have been playing a double game throughout this, that they have been providing Intelligence directly to Israel about, if you like, Iranian secret sites and others.
So we have here this happening and at the same time, if you like, the board of governors of the IAEA have now produced a resolution stating that Iran is in breach.
Of the JCPOA, which is obviously a prelude to a coming resolution for a snapback of sanctions.
So, as I say, the process, if it is a political process, is going backwards at this time.
What happens if Iran does have Israeli nuclear secrets and it publishes them?
What does that achieve?
I don't think they'll publish them until they've attacked them first.
They can publish them after.
But I think they'd probably want to keep the element of surprise, military surprise, in their hands first.
So, yeah, no, I mean, look, this would be devastating for Israel.
If this is true, which may explain why we've had a slight change in tone from Netanyahu, who has been saying, well, you know, I could see, if you like, just temporary enrichment, of course, which he's always said, never, ever, ever.
And, of course, even that temporary enrichment is not acceptable to Iran, the idea of this consortium.
By the way, that consortium idea did not come from the Iranians.
It came from the American side.
And it's not going to fly.
It's not going to do the work because essentially America wants this consortium.
I mean, they even claim that they've decided how many shares each side owe.
It's not true.
And this consortium idea wouldn't even be in Iran.
So at any point, you know, the West could still turn off the energy supply.
I just want to explain why this is such a neuralgic.
The point is that for many years, going back to Shah's time, Iran had a research reactor in Tehran which produced medicines and things for diseases that needed isotopes and things for curing cancer and other diseases.
And it requires 20%.
Enriched uranium to work.
And they had that at the time.
And they imported it.
And then at a certain point with the JCPOA, they came to the U.S. and negotiated and said, "Look, we've long since run out of the 20 percent.
We'd like to import some." And initially the U.S. said, "Okay, yes, you know, go out in the market and get 20 percent enrichment.
We can agree to that probably." And, of course, what happened was they found buyers, and then the Americans said, of course you can't.
No, you're not going to have 20%.
And this is behind the Iranian absolute determination.
No, we have to have enrichment on our own soil.
We can't let it just be at the whim of another state.
Before we finish, I want your comments on this.
We're going to play two clips.
From the American Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, one is testimony under oath before Congress, saying that the IC, the intelligence community, is convinced that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.
And the other is a video she made just the other day for her own personal website, not an official government website, saying the opposite.
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.
As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers.
Perhaps it's because they are confident.
That they will have access to nuclear shelters for themselves and for their families that regular people won't have access to.
Interesting as to whom she's referring in the second one.
Is she talking about Lindsey Graham, Benjamin Netanyahu?
She can't be talking of anybody in Iran because they're not threatening to use a weapon that they don't have.
I think she's probably talking, you may have seen that Larry Johnson, when he was in Iraq, Oh, so that's what she was talking about.
I think that's probably what she was talking about.
But equally, I mean, what we're talking about in Iran, because we're going into the same thing, you know, where we have some plans and ideas about that Iran would fold, that it is weak, that it doesn't have any air defenses, and it would collapse very easily so we can put the pressure on.
It has weapons that have the capabilities of a nuclear It already has those.
It has hypersonic missiles, and it has even larger missiles with capabilities that we don't exactly know.
But as I say, it could be devastating.
A war with Iran could be devastating both for the United States, but certainly for Israel.
It could change the whole balance.
In the United States, it could change the whole...
I hope the White House is listening.
That's the best I can say.
I know somebody over there listens, but I hope it gets to the Oval Office.
Alistair, thank you very much.
As I said, I know it's not your usual day or usual time, but events are happening quickly, and your analysis is indispensable to us.
Thank you very much, my dear friend.
We'll see you Monday morning, Eastern Time.
My pleasure.
My pleasure.
Thank you.
Of course, a great man with brilliant insight and selfless in his willingness to share what he knows.
Coming up later today at 1 o 'clock on all of this, Professor Glenn Deason.
At 2 o 'clock on all of this, Professor Jeffrey Sachs.
At 3 o 'clock on all of this, Professor John Muir Shermer.
And at 4 o 'clock, if we can find him, Max Blumenthal.
▲
Export Selection