Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano - Alastair Crooke : Trump's Escalatory Dominance Mimics Netanyahu's.

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 15, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano

26:11

Alastair Crooke : Trump's Escalatory Dominance Mimics Netanyahu's.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom.
	Today is Monday, September 15th, 2025.
	Alistair Crook will be here with us in just a moment.
	But first, this.
	We all know how devastating war is.
	Lives lost, communities destroyed, but war can also threaten your financial freedom.
	That's where America's heading.
	Our growing involvement in global conflicts.
	It means more spending, more debt, and a weaker dollar.
	That's a direct hit to your wallet.
	So here are three things to keep your eyes on: exploding debt, declining dollar, rising prices of gold and silver, these things are already happening.
	Goldman Sachs predicts gold could hit 4500 an ounce by 2026.
	Why?
	Because central banks and smart investors are buying gold hand over fist.
	They know what's coming and they're hedging against it.
	Currency collapse, inflation, and market volatility.
	Gold has been a trusted store of value for thousands of years, and today we need that protection more than ever.
	Call Lear Capital now at 8005114620 or visit LearjudsNap.com.
	No one is going to protect your wealth for you.
	You need to do it yourself.
	And now is the time.
	Alistair, good day to you, my dear friend, and welcome here.
	Is there any question in your mind but that the United States knew about, approved, authorized, and facilitated the Israeli attack on Doha last week?
	Oh, I I think certainly, because the final decision seems to have been taken by Netanyahu and Ron Derma together rather than in a full cabinet meeting.
	And it seems to me that Dermer is the link person for all of the White House.
	He's the person he's a whisperer into Trump's ear.
	And he is very close.
	I mean, there is not sort of a written evidence of it, but I think it's very clear.
	And we see from the um uh Israeli press, um, they say very say openly, uh, I mean, without giving the evidence, but they say it openly um that it was approved by Trump.
	What they then go on to say is, and what they're saying now is that, you know, well, uh actually the problem is that Trump likes success.
	You know, and he wanted big success.
	And they say rather ruefully, well, you know, if it had been a successful strike in Doha, probably Trump would have been out there up front claiming it and saying this was, you know, a great achievement and being very um uh taking ownership of it.
	Um but as it didn't work, uh, and there are now sort of ramifications across the Gulf states.
	Um suddenly um he seems to be very irritated about the attack as a whole.
	Uh Scott Ritter has pointed out that the uh Israeli planes had to fly uh over Iraq and the United States controls Iraqi airspace, and of course, once they entered uh Qatar, uh the United States controls that airspace, and we stood down, and it cutter radar stood down, which we control, and cutter defenses stood down.
	So there doesn't seem to be any question but that your analysis there is spot on, and the president is yet again uh in order to make himself look good, misleading Everyone.
	But but beyond President Trump's uh credibility, which we could talk about all day, what are the geopolitical ramifications?
	What is the geopolitical fallout from this American supported Israeli perpetrated attack on a civilian neighborhood in the capital of uh Qatar?
	Well, it'll it's too soon, it's too soon to say what the longer-term um consequences will be.
	Um, but certainly it is a new chapter.
	Um because Gata was regarded as a safe place.
	It was a safe place because America had asked Doha to host um uh uh the Hamas leadership.
	And I know that because I was I in Damascus some time ago speaking with um President Assad, um, and he told me that uh at the beginning of the Iraq uh war, um Kolumpal had come and warned him that if they didn't cut the links to Iran and to Hamas very quickly, um, then there would be Syria would be sent back to the Stone Age virtually.
	Um and Assad said, so I said, well, you know, uh what do you want me to do with Hamas?
	You want me to send them to their deaths and in Gaza?
	Is that what you're asking for?
	Oh, no, no, no, no, said Kulimpal.
	No, they're going to Doha.
	It's all arranged.
	So uh, you know, it it was even back then, you know, uh, and accepted this that uh Gatha would act in a special circumstances, mediator, a safe place for the leadership to exist, and also um uh the the financial relationships, first of all with Gaza, uh, but also then with Mehniahu uh and with others in Israel.
	All of this was down to uh Gatha, and it's been playing a very complicated game.
	On the one hand, it has been hosting and acting as mediators for you recall, even with uh the Taliban a little time ago.
	They were the the Taliban were in in Doha um because the Americans wanted to talk to the Taliban.
	So this has been going on for for some time and clearly under the auspices of the United States.
	And then suddenly, what happens with this failed attack on the Hamas negotiating team?
	Hamas negotiating team had been set up, of course, because what were they doing all being together?
	They were there to discuss the Whitkoff plan.
	Um what was happening in Iran a little time ago, um, well, of course, the Iranians were preparing um for discussions on the Whitkoff plan for the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement um in uh Omar.
	And so they were taken by surprise by the coordinated attack on Iran.
	So all of these things have a uh a history of if you do you know setting up peace talks, the same happened incidentally with Hezbollah.
	The Hezbollah were meeting to discuss another American proposal.
	So you have three of these cases where uh the US proposals were used as bait to get a leadership together into one place, and then they were killed.
	Um the aim was to do the same in in Iran to catch Iran balance, and then now we have Doha.
	I wonder if um if uh Witkoff was engaged in a deceptive conspiracy with Trump to dupe the Iranians and to do Hamas, or if Trump uh duped Whitkoff, but it is clear that the Whitkoff Trump Gaza plans and the Whitkoff Trump Iran plans were fraud,
	a farce, a deception, and resulted in the deaths of people who took them seriously.
	And also because uh, you know, that the there are long-term consequences to um to destroying your mediators.
	I mean, this happened to me once in Gaza, um, and I negotiated a ceasefire uh with Hamas and also with the uh forces of Fatah.
	And it was all set up and it was due to start on the next in a day or so.
	And I was just waiting for the okay from Damascus.
	And then it was consisted there was going to be an article prepared to explain it for the New York Times, and there was also all the complicated arrangements for between the Tanzim and the Hamas about how to manage the details of a ceasefire and what to do if the Israelis invaded or bombed or something like that.
	And then I was went to bed and been told by Brussels that I had to inform the Israelis about that the ceasefire was about to start.
	And then I was woken up at four in the morning by Avier Solana, who was the high representative of the European Union, and he said, Have you seen the news?
	And I said, No, I haven't.
	What is it?
	And he said, they've dropped a one-ton bomb on the house of Shahada, who was the negotiator for Hamas, killing him and 13 others, his entire family, uh, were killed.
	And that was the end of, of course, the ceasefire.
	And I remember sort of some people sort of from the Israeli side sort of laughing at me and saying, uh, how did it feel having all this blood on your hands?
	You were so naive to try and get a ceasefire.
	How how do you uh view Trump in making foreign policy decisions?
	In two months, he has taken two very close allies, India and Qatar, and turned them into profound bitter enemies.
	One cutter, probably symbolic, one India of profound economic significance.
	Well, I have heard, you know, there are theories that this is deliberate, this is uh uh an uh an attempt to change the region, but I don't accept this.
	I I think that it is goes back to the team's really poor understanding uh of the region and foreign policy.
	Uh in terms of India, um, I think it was thought that India was sort of halfway already to being an ally of the United States, and just one little push would separate India um from Russia and China and from the BRICS,
	and that they would then come over to America um in terms of dividing the BRICS and weakening, if you like, um the relationship.
	But it they didn't seem to understand, I mean, that the the two key things which were important was that India was also in the midst of doing a complicated free trade negotiation with the European Union.
	And Europe for you for India, this was much more important in many ways, because uh the amount of trade um that India did with the United States is small, about 3% or something.
	And also the sort of trade that can be, if you like, diverted to other markets, can be pushed into other markets.
	Um, whereas the trade with um, particularly with the European Union on agricultural and other products is vital to India.
	And so it was an extremely uh silly idea, which apparently, I mean, I hear I can't confirm it exactly, but the the idea the thinking behind it, apparently,
	um uh Friedman, who um was has been very much involved in these thinking, George Friedman, um, was saying that the idea behind this was that, you know, well, look, China it's too difficult.
	I mean, you know, we can't go to war with the country that owns our supply lines.
	Right.
	I mean, we're dependent on China, and China is dependent on us.
	The latter part is not true.
	China is not dependent, it's not nearly so dependent on the United States as the US is on China.
	And they said we're thinking we'll take India off the table, and that will make it easier for China to come to terms um uh with the the US.
	And in fact, that didn't happen because on Saturday with Bassant meeting with uh the Chinese foreign minister, uh the the Chinese announced that they were um uh uh in instigating a trade investigation uh into the practices of America in terms of chip uh and related um items and whether it was contrary to the trade um uh act.
	So, I mean, they're playing hardball still, and it's obvious why.
	It's called Siberia II because when China when China and Russia signed the agreement for Siberia II, China did something which was uh hugely strategic.
	It made itself dependent on Russia as much as Russia becomes dependent on China.
	And this is a long historic way of China.
	I mean, from two thousand years back.
	China's foreign policy has always been based on how do you keep the kingdom, the middle kingdom secure from the enemies on its borders.
	And even you know, a thousand, two thousand years ago, the idea was you have trade corridors, you have links to all of your far-reaching sort of elements of the kingdom.
	And they uh instituted even then the practice of making the axle lengths was to be standard, so they could go on standard routes anywhere in the middle kingdom at any time.
	And they and this was their way of sort of gulliverizing together the whole of the middle kingdom to protect themselves from trouble.
	And so this is what they've just done with Russia.
	They've extended this um the the um the gas pipeline or going to it won't be until 2030 that'll be complete, but the Chinese are very quick in building these things.
	And then that is part of the connection, together with all the other trade agreements that they made, both with Russia and India, you can see that this is China going back to its roots about foreign policy, how we keep, if you like, uh uh often quite heterogeneous um kingdom together uh and linked um to the center.
	Chris, uh, can you put up the full screen uh of President Trump uh from Saturday about major sanctions on Russia?
	I'm ready to do major sanctions on Russia when all NATO nations have agreed and started to do the same thing, and when all NATO nations stop buying oil from Russia.
	This is absurd, isn't it?
	Turkey's not going to stop buying oil from Russia, Hungary's never going to agree to this.
	This is just political tap.
	Exactly.
	And it it seems to me to look exactly like that uh this is way of uh of Trump um avoiding uh the dilemma that he had of um Lindsay Graham and the others pressing him for sanctions.
	And so now he says, well, only when the Europeans do it all.
	When the Europeans put sanctions on everyone, and as you rightly point out, he ties it to NATO, which means Turkey too, which has direct um piped gas coming through Turkstream to Turkey.
	And they're not about to give that up because that would destroy their economy.
	And of course, it's nonsense because the European Union, um, when it comes to putting tariffs or sanctions on India and China, requires all member states, um, it requires full consensus of member states to take that forward.
	And that's never going to come.
	I mean, Hungary and Slovakia for a start will not agree to it, but many other states will uh refuse.
	And also because a European Union is frightened of Chinese reactions and counter-sanctions against Europe.
	In the case of Europe with China, Europe is very vulnerable, and China is in the commanding position, particularly on vehicles and cars, and it's instituteing also inquiries and legal action to uh impose sanctions on the EU over certain elements of electronic vehicles.
	So the EU, I mean, it's of course uh not the case.
	But what is going on then?
	Well, I think the more disturbing thing is is what we hear, and it was already present um at the SEO meeting in in China a little while ago, um, is that America has done nothing, nothing at all to prepare for a permanent agreement between Russia uh between Russia and Ukraine.
	There is no preparations.
	There are no even the technical meetings don't happen.
	And there's no sign that Ukraine has any interest in coming to those technical meetings.
	What preparation for trilateral meeting?
	What good came from?
	What good, if anything, came from the Alaska meeting between President Trump and President Putin?
	Two things really.
	The first was that um uh, you know, and this was intentional, they wanted to get to the um make sure that Trump understood what Putin's proposal is, that he was going to, if you like, impose a solution through force on Europe and Zelensky in Ukraine.
	And the view in in in Moscow is that was successful.
	He seemed to get it, and indeed that's what came out of the meeting.
	Um the other thing which was much more doubtful, they thought that um Trump had agreed, and this was what they told their colleagues uh at Jinjiang meeting of the SCO, they told he um uh Putin told them he thought he had an understanding with Trump to delay sanctions and to give him um Putin the space um to take forward um the
	military operation.
	As Putin has said, we are going to complete and finish the military, the objectives of the military operation, really come what may, whatever you you know want, but that's what we're going to do.
	Um and um, but that didn't last long because then we had the Europeans saying, well, we want more sanctions, we want bigger sanctions.
	Uh and now we've had, of course, you know um a great scare, which was obviously part of this exercise with the drones.
	Um, you know, these drones which contained no explosives or no warhead that were supposedly fired from uh Russia into Poland is quite clearly, in my view, a set up,
	quite clearly uh an attempt um to, if you like, lay the foundations for uh um uh uh uh a bigger NATO exercise uh against Russia.
	They've had um Article 4 meetings in NATO.
	And the Europeans have just decided, or European members of NATO have decided that they're going to have prepositioned forces and certain seven or eight.
	It's the architecture for, you know, uh this ambition for having a wider conflict with Russia when they can get um European forces into Ukraine.
	Before we go, Alistair, 110,000 people in London demonstrating uh against the government.
	Is that a big deal?
	Yeah, because it wasn't 110,000.
	That's what the police said it was.
	Um but uh everyone else who's looked at the videos and who has some experience in this saw one of the biggest demonstrations ever held in Britain, probably several hundred thousand, not just a hundred and ten.
	The police always give uh underestimations of these figures.
	And I think it discredits them.
	I don't think it helps them.
	Yes, it is shocked Europe, and it has shocked um Britain.
	The size of the antagonism to the government and to the establishment.
	I mean, and it was huge.
	Um lots of people went um, ordinary, ordinary people who who came and protested and waved the flags.
	I mean, it may sound amazing to you in the United States because you are often waving flags, the American flag, um, freely and clearly.
	Well, in Britain, it is regarded as um something that the government will not allow.
	They keep taking down the Union flag or the cross, uh St. George's Cross flag, um and removing it and say that this is a sign of far right uh activism and won't be allowed.
	Uh well, they were waving the flags and they were saying we want our country back.
	And of course it was affected um by what happened to Charlie Kirk.
	Um that's had its impact um in Britain and in other parts of Europe as well.
	Uh, not just in its narrower perspectives, but perhaps in its wider perspectives too.
	Alistair, thank you, my dear friend.
	Fascinating, fascinating analysis, as always for us here in the U.S. First Thing Monday morning.
	It's a great way to start the week for us.
	You're deeply appreciated.
	Thanks for accommodating my schedule.
	Look for schedule.
	We will look forward to seeing you next week.
	Thank you very much, Judge.
	Thanks.
	Bye for now.
	Bye.
	Uh, coming up later today, we originally had Scott Ritter scheduled.
	He'll be with us later in the week, but Ray McGovern will be here at 10 this morning.
	Max Blumenthal in a must-watch interview that I will conduct with him at four uh in the afternoon.
	What was the nature and extent of the Zionist attempt to influence Charlie Kirk?
	And at 5:30 this afternoon, at unusual time, but he's as faithful as the day is long, Larry Johnson.

▲