All Episodes
Previous Next
June 18, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
24:34
Prof. Glenn Diesen : European Complicity in Israeli Aggression?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Thursday, June 19, 2025.
Professor Glenn Deason joins us now.
Professor Deason, always a pleasure.
Thank you for joining us.
I'd like to be able to pick your brain and prevail in your knowledge of European reaction to the events in Iran and Israel and European complicity, if there is any.
The end stages of the war in Ukraine.
We'll start with Israel.
Is there evidence of the involvement of European intelligence agencies in support of the Israeli attack on Iran last week?
Well, there's been some flights, refueling flights, I think, German, but also British.
But again, this hasn't been confirmed as far as I know.
I'm aware.
But it's mostly the political support which is being provided.
That is that the German Chancellor Mertz, he made the argument that Israel is doing the dirty work for us.
And thereafter also passing a resolution to effectively give legitimacy for Israel's attack on Iran.
He also saw Kayakalas, which is the EU foreign.
A policy chief who argued that she responded by saying that Israel has the right to defend itself.
Apparently, Iran does not have the right to defend itself.
And she also made the statement that Iran must return to the negotiation table, which is also an astonishing remark, given that Iran was at the negotiation table.
They were in the middle of negotiation when they were subjected to a surprise attack.
And it's Israel that doesn't want to stop.
And we also had a recent meeting with the G7.
Again, they go through the motions.
They say this, you know, the benign words that they want the de-escalation, but they don't actually want an end to the fighting.
They didn't want to call for a ceasefire.
So what exactly is de-escalation here?
They certainly do not condemn the attacks on Iran's nuclear reactors.
They don't condemn a surprise attack, a war of aggression.
Criticizing a car bombing, a bombing of a TV station, a murdering of journalists in Iran.
So it's mostly a display of support for Israel.
But again, they don't have much of a narrative to lean into.
So they pretty much go with the old tested one, which is that Israel has the right to defend itself.
But it's not proving to be very convincing, given that this was, again, a surprise attack by Israel.
Chris, play the CNN montage, or have it ready, of Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Professor Deason, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been arguing for 30 years that Iran is within days of having a nuclear weapon.
As recently as two months ago, the American Director of National Intelligence testified before the United States Congress under oath.
That it is the consensus of the intelligence community, by which she meant hers, MI6, and Mossad, that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and has not been working on one since 2002.
Before we play this clip, have the G7 leaders fallen for the Netanyahu argument, notwithstanding?
Intel evidence, substantial intel evidence to the contrary.
I don't think it really matters anymore.
I think the pursuit of truth is not the main objective.
I think there's a desperate effort to push a narrative, because usually ahead of wars, governments have some time to spend, well, significant time to develop a narrative to justify war.
Indeed, we saw this with Bush and the weapons of mass destruction.
You build up consent and support for a war.
He didn't really have it this time.
Indeed, this is part of the problem with a surprise attack when Trump on day says, we're close to a deal and then the next day, striking Iran.
So I think for this reason, the narratives they're leaning into are very weak.
So they're not really commenting on, But if I can just add, I don't think they really believe that this has anything to do with Iran's nuclear program anyways, because as Trump has said, he doesn't even want Iran to have a civilian nuclear program, which is Iran's right as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Also, in the negotiations, they link this to Iran's ballistic missiles, this partnership with foreign partners, be it Yemen, Hezbollah, Hamas.
So they linked the nuclear issue to everything, effectively demanding a capitulation of Iran as a regional power.
So I don't think they really believe...
It's probably about dislodging the Ayatollah from power.
I mean, Netanyahu, for all of his deceptions and lies, has actually been pretty candid about that.
Israel does not want another power in its neighborhood.
It wants to be able to be the bully with impunity.
And Iran simply won't allow that.
At least that's my view.
Watch this clip of Netanyahu.
It goes back to the 1990s.
Tell me if there's any truth in all these utterances.
The deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.
Iran, by the way, is also outpacing Iraq in the development of ballistic missile systems that they hope will reach the eastern seaboard of the United States within 15 years.
By next spring, at most, by next summer.
At current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage.
From there, it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.
The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons.
That would place a militant Islamic terror regime weeks away from having the fissile material for an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs.
If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time.
It could be a year, it could be within a few months, less than a year.
Any truth to any of that, Professor Deason?
No, and I think you're quite correct with your comment that this is motivated by the desire for regime change.
Besides Netanyahu, you also have more honesty coming from the likes of Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz.
They're quite open that they want the government to be removed, and I think this is the objective.
Now, the reference to weapons of mass destruction, you see this used not just in Iraq, but Syria as well.
It's a very convincing argument to legitimize war.
But it has to be pointed out again that Iran, if it was really about a nuclear weapon, Iran has said it doesn't want a nuclear weapon, and it's also been willing to sign agreements.
For intrusive inspections.
And this was the JCPOA, but this is what the first Trump administration pulled out of unilaterally while the Iranians were fulfilling their obligations.
So if we wanted simply...
And if that's what they want, I think that's a good cause.
I think it will be very destabilizing.
Indeed, Iran also recognizes it will be destabilizing.
If they acquired a nuclear weapon, so would Saudi Arabia.
So it would spark a security competition, which no one would actually gain from.
They have the reason and the rationality not to develop a nuclear weapon.
And they will not discuss why and how Israel has a nuclear weapon without signing the non-proliferation treaty.
How can this be?
The American government doesn't want to talk about it.
Netanyahu won't talk about it.
Well, I agree.
Imagine if there was a deal in which Iran would subject itself to very intrusive inspections, commit itself non-nuclear weapon, but then...
Because at the moment, this whole thing is very hypocritical.
That is, Israel is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It has nuclear weapons.
It allows no inspections.
Meanwhile, it demands that Iran should...
The way usually international law works and arms treaties would be you accept mutual constraints.
But we don't do this with Iran or anyone else for that sake.
It's always you have to I think it would be much more helpful if we could actually meet Iranian security concerns and we could meet halfway.
I think they would be willing to go a long way.
Instead, there's very reasonable accusations that their willingness to accept is arms control.
And the inspections by the IAEA has resulted in them essentially handing over a lot of intelligence to Israel, which is why a lot of nuclear scientists are being assassinated and the Israelis have to know what to target.
See if any of this brings back memories.
Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small.
Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources.
These are not assertions.
What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort, no effort, to disarm as required by the international community.
Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.
American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger.
They have ballistic missiles that can now reach deep into Europe and soon could reach the United States.
You want these people to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to your cities?
Today it's Tel Aviv, tomorrow it's New York.
Same old discredited...
Domino theory argument going back to President Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War.
Today, Tel Aviv.
Tomorrow, New York.
History repeats itself, Professor.
Yeah, this is a good way of framing wars and legitimizing them.
Again, when you want to legitimize a war, you want to strip the situation of all complexity.
And you want to create a very simple binary solution.
That is, either you accept this war bombing Iran.
Otherwise, you risk an attack by Iran, even though there's other options.
You're supporting the government and everything is done, or the regime, as we say.
And you essentially are forced to choose.
So do you choose our side or Iran's side?
And now you divide the population into, effectively, patriots versus traitors.
So it's a very sneaky way of creating consent for war.
But it's something we do in every single war.
So it's quite interesting to watch this clip because...
Yes, yes.
Are you able to have your finger on the pulse of how Europeans feel?
I don't mean Mertz and Starmer and Macron and von der Leyen, but average Europeans.
I mean, do they want their governments aiding the U.S. and Israel to invade Iran any more than they want their governments?
To aid Ukraine to fight Russia?
Well, I haven't seen polls from Europe.
I've seen polls from the United States where you see the majority do not want a war with Iran.
From my impressions, this is what I get a sense of here as well, that in Europe they do not want a war.
Of course, there's very many different European countries with different sentiments.
But overall, I don't think they want this.
And this is interesting because...
That is, the only thing we know about Iran is that they're evil, they hate the West, and they want a nuclear weapon.
I don't think any of this has to be true, but again, the way that Iran is framed in the media, you would never get anything positive.
And nonetheless, you see a huge skepticism.
And I do think that people who are somewhat aware, they know that this is not simply just another dangerous, Military, opportunistic path in the Middle East, I think most people recognize that Iran is something very, very different.
This is not Iraq.
Their population is much larger, almost twice the size.
Their territory is many times larger.
Their country is effectively a fortress of mountains.
Which prevents land forces from coming in.
They can shut down the global economy.
They can hide thousands of missiles underground.
You can't really defeat Iran, which begs then the question, if Iraq was a failure, Libya was a failure, Afghanistan, Syria, yeah, we can go on.
This is going to be the worst.
On the contrary.
So I think people who are somewhat informed, they can see that this is going to be an unmitigated disaster.
Now that Trump says, well, we only accept the complete surrender of Iran, this will never happen.
So the only option now is endless war without an exit strategy, which is a good summary of everything we've done in that region for the past 30 years.
Except now we're facing a very powerful adversary at the time when the collective West is severely weakened.
I remember I was in your program the evening before they began bombing, and I saw all the movements taking place, and I still refuse to believe that they could be this crazy.
Yes, we all refuse to believe they could be this crazy.
How can the President of the United States be this crazy?
Back when the Tony Blair government asked the British House of Commons to endorse the George W. Bush-inspired invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the late great Anthony Wedgwood-Ben, a fierce fighter against war, gave a remarkable speech on the floor of the House of Commons.
Here is Of what the great Anthony Wedgwood Ben said.
I'll finish just by saying this.
War is an easy thing to talk about.
There are not many people of the generation that remember it.
The right honourable gentleman served with the six and the last one.
I never killed anyone, but I wore uniform.
But I was in London in the Blitz in 1940, living in the Millbank Tower where I was born.
Some different ideas have come in since.
And every night I went down to the shelter in Thames House.
Every morning I saw 500 people were killed in Westminster one night by a land mine.
It was terrifying.
Aren't Arabs terrified?
Aren't Iraqis terrified?
Don't Arab and Iraqi women weep when their children die?
Doesn't bombing strengthen their determination?
What fools we are to live in a generation for which war is a computer game for our children and just an interesting little Channel 4 news item.
Every Member of Parliament tonight who votes for the Government motion Now, that's for their decision to take.
But this is a quite unique debate in my parliamentary experience where we ask to share responsibility for a decision we won't really be taking with consequences for people who have no...
And I finish with this.
On October 24th, 1945, and the former Prime Minister from Bexley and Old Sutcut will remember it, the United Nations Charter was passed.
And the words of that charter etched into my mind and moved me even as I think of them.
We, the people of the United Nations, determined to save future generations.
Succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime has caused untold suffering to mankind.
That was the pledge of that generation to this generation and it would be the greatest betrayal of all if we voted to abandon the charter and take unilateral action and pretend we were doing it in the name of the international community and I shall vote against the motion for the reasons that I've given them.
There is no great debate in the House of Representatives or the Senate of the United States of America on this.
For all of the wrongful decisions that were made by the House of Commons, at least they had a debate.
At least there was an Anthony Wedgwood.
There's nothing here.
It's a decision of one man made in a subterranean room surrounded by people telling him what he wants to hear.
No, I agree.
But I also think it's worth noting where this message came from.
Again, an elderly statesman now who has passed away.
And this is a real problem because it's said that every generation has to learn.
To fear war.
And we've had many decades of relative peace and stability.
And that former generation who experienced also the Second World War and all the horrors of war, they're all passing away now.
And the lessons of war is also gone.
So there's not any healthy fear of war anymore.
And to make matters much worse, we had now over three decades of a unipolar order in which war is something that doesn't happen here.
It happens far away in other places.
And again, we can sit and justify whatever we're doing.
Usually we do it by referencing democracy and freedom and ideals that we hold there.
But there is this also what he suggested, this always a need.
If you're going to go and bomb other people, the need to dehumanize the opponent.
Again, they do have, you know, And all we have to do now is make references to terrorism, and it's enough to begin to support a genocide.
And it's not just that the people we are slaughtering in other places, which is a disaster, but it's also hollowing out the soul of our countries as well.
When we have to legitimize what shouldn't be legitimized just on a daily basis, Yeah, it's quite heartbreaking.
I wish we had these kind of diplomats and politicians today, because I don't see them among our own political class.
The American Congress, there's just a few, and the leadership does the best it can to shut them down.
The House of Representatives doesn't permit debate.
They give you one or two minutes.
The Senate, you can talk as long as you want, but you're talking to...
Just to switch gears for a minute before we finish.
And I thank you for your eloquent analysis of all this, Professor.
It's such a joy to be able to do this Q&A with you.
I'm switching to Ukraine.
Are the European governments prepared to pick up the slack if Donald Trump terminates?
The volume, the level of American aid to Ukraine?
Well, I think he already is for two reasons.
One, they want to walk away from this because they have new wars in the Middle East, but also they want to shift focus to Asia.
But now with the war against Iran, air defenses and other weaponry has to be redeveloped.
So the US's absence now in Ukraine is being felt.
And I think that the Europeans are now desperate to fill the shoes of America, but they don't have the money, they don't have the weapons.
So it's simply not going to happen.
They don't have the industrial capability to ramp up production either.
But still, they don't want to even talk to the Russians, so much for calling for the escalation in diplomacy.
They don't even want to pick up the phone.
But again, I think all the war propaganda has something to do with this because That is, we can't recognize the security concerns of Russia because then you will be pro-Russian.
The Germans are not even allowed to buy oil from Russia because that's pro-Russian, so they have to buy Russian oil from India, which makes no sense at all.
The problem is if you want security, you have to consider Russian security.
If you want prosperity, you do have to reopen some trade with Russia.
But everything that's in our interest is effectively labeled pro-Russian.
So we've more or less been banned from acting in our own national interest, and the problems are starting to pile up.
So the idea that us, the Europeans, can fill the shoes of America and go and fight Russia is crazy.
America and Europe together for three years couldn't defeat Russia.
And now the Ukrainian military is falling apart.
It has a manpower shortage.
It has a shortage of weaponry.
And at this point in time, when the Russians are stronger than ever, the Europeans are filling up what the Americans aren't doing anymore.
No, it's absurd.
This is only making the war drag out and resulting in more deaths.
And this is something that the Ukrainians are waking up to as well.
Of course.
▲
Export Selection