Feb. 22, 2026 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
24:28
Ray McGovern : Nukes Have Nothing To Do With It.
Ray McGovern and Judge Andrew Napolitano examine the British "Flamingo" strike on a Russian factory, which Russia’s nuclear doctrine could interpret as a casus belli—though McGovern doubts Putin’s overreaction. They contrast a March 2025 CIA report (Iran not pursuing nukes) with a January 2026 U.S. defense document hinting at renewed Iranian interest, calling Netanyahu’s claims of 90% enrichment baseless. Trump’s shift toward Geneva talks and Iran’s Thursday paper delivery suggest diplomacy over strikes, despite 58% of polls predicting otherwise; McGovern argues Trump avoids war due to midterm risks and moral concerns. The episode underscores how intelligence assessments and political pressure—not actual threats—drive nuclear brinkmanship. [Automatically generated summary]
Tragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government.
To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected.
What if sometimes to love your country, you had to alter or abolish the government?
What if Jefferson was right?
What if that government is best which governs least?
What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong?
What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live as a slave?
What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now?
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Monday, February 23rd, 2026.
My dear friend Ray McGovern joins us now.
Ray, always a pleasure.
Thank you, as always, for accommodating my schedule.
Before we get into what I hope to be an in-depth discussion on the president's thinking with respect to Iran, over the weekend,
the British orchestrated an attack on a Russians' munition factory using a weapon known as flamingo 1,300 miles into Russia in the Ural Mountains.
How dangerous is this?
There go the flamingos.
That factory in Ukraine will be obliterated, to borrow a phrase.
You know, the Russians are enduring this as pinpricks.
Okay.
You'll recall about a year ago, there was a drone attack by Ukraine on part of the Triad, the Triad.
It was a bomber base used for strategic purposes.
Oh, my God.
Even if you look at the Russian doctrine for using nuclear weapons, this will qualify as a causal.
Well, look, Putin is not going to overreact.
How long are we going to take to understand that?
Well, he will do is put this on the ledger.
He's winning the war in Ukraine.
The British will get theirs, but the notion that he would send an Areshnik or something else into the factory near London is, in my view, very, very improbable.
All right.
We will discuss that on Friday, if it is still relevant, because as you may know, your compadre who's on right before you believes it is probable that an Areshnik will visit that factory, and he referred to the same factory.
I didn't realize that it was near London.
Larry says he thinks the Russians have had enough.
Former President Medvedev, whom you and I would call a hothead, is apparently in charge of this particular project, securing the Russian munitions factories.
Who knows?
It'll make for an interesting back and forth with you and Larry if nothing has happened by the time we get to Friday.
Well, if Mitzviz thinks this is a good idea, which even he, I think, is more reasonable, and suggests that Putin and the rest of the National Security Council, they'll be turned down, just like the hotheads were turned down after the attack by Ukrainians, mind you, on the bomber base, and by Ukrainians, mind you, on the state house there near Valdai.
And the Russians are blaming it on the Ukrainians, and that is significant.
They are all but exculpating a U.S. role, much less a CI role, CIA role in all this.
They're exploiting their direct contacts with Trump.
And I dare say this has probably had some influence on Trump's caution about using this armada in an escapade that would end up very much like the Spanish armada a lot of years ago.
Do you think that the Russians blaming the Ukrainians on the assassination of the general six months ago and the attempted assassination on another general two weeks ago plays into any of this?
Yes and yes.
But again, you know, they don't have as many generals as we do.
If this flamingo attack was orchestrated or facilitated by MI6, if, is it likely the CIA either at least knew about it or perhaps contributed to it?
I don't know the answer to that.
This would all be speculation.
These things sometimes are let go at a lower level to give higher levels plausible deniability.
So is it likely that the CIA knew about this?
Probably at what level?
I'm not sure.
It would be all speculation on my part because I have no evidence.
What role does CIA play in persuading Trump that Iran has nuclear weapons and Iran is weak and now is the time to strike?
Well, you know, the CIA 11 months ago in March of last year pronounced on this whole issue.
And I have what they said about Iran nuclear.
And what they said was, this is the U.S. intelligence threat assessment of March 2025, quote, we continue to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2023.
Let me read on.
We continue to assess that they're not building a nuclear weapon and that, you know, Khamenei remains the final decision maker over Iran's nuclear program to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons.
So that's what the threat assessment said.
Now, more recently, just four weeks ago, for people who weren't tuned in last week, I will repeat, this is the U.S. national defense strategy, a big deal, authorized or required by Congress.
And it said last month, that's January 2026, the following, quote, now please listen to this.
Iran's leaders have also left open the possibility that they will try again to obtain a nuclear weapon, period, end quote.
So I am very proud of the people, not only in the CIA, but in the Pentagon, who are saying, look, there's still no evidence that they have authorized work on a nuclear weapon.
Now, nuclear enrichment of uranium, of course.
But the idea, Judge, is that they conflate high-level enrichment of uranium with a nuclear weapon.
They're two separate and distinct processes.
And, you know, if they have highly enriched uranium, well, that's one thing.
If they have no weapon, and if they are not working on any weapon to deliver that, that is even more important, in my humble opinion.
Here's the president of the United States showing he doesn't know what he's talking about, and Steve Witkoff showing he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Cut number one.
Last summer, I ordered devastating strikes on Iran's key nuclear facilities and achieving total obliteration of the Iran nuclear potential capability, totally obliterated.
They've been enriching well beyond the number that you need for civil nuclear.
It's up to 60%.
They're probably a week away from having industrial grade bomb-making material.
We assess that the American strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities has set back Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons for many years to come.
The nuclear threat of Iran, that was totally obliterated.
Iran, where we wiped out their nuclear capacity for weapons.
They totally obliterated the nuclear potential nuclear supply of Iran.
In June, we obliterated Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity.
They're probably a week away from having industrial grade bomb-making material.
The last one is what I think, and I suspect you do as well, is a material misrepresentation.
They are probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.
That would be his basis for making that statement, Ray.
With all due respect to you and to Chris, who drug out those things, this is a classic case of conflation.
Okay.
I said just a minute ago, there's a very big difference between making a nuclear weapon, I'll say again, weapon, and enriching uranium up to the point where it could be placed in a nuclear weapon.
Okay.
Now, what I took a note here on what Witkoff says.
Well, he says they're 60%.
Well, Netanyahu has been claiming they were 90%.
I mean, they're doing all kinds of things.
Okay.
And it's 60% in bomb-making ability.
Well, you need the highly enriched uranium to make a bomb.
But if you're not working on a bomb, you're conflating this and it's just confusing everybody.
So please recognize the distinction.
What Trump can claim now is that he's prevented Iran from making a nuclear weapon.
And as you can see, most Americans will say, oh my God, that's great because they don't know about the two judgments I just read you from the Frith Assessment last year and from last month, mind you, January 2026, the defense guidance, which said they may be thinking about now under these circumstances, they may be thinking about making an, well, they're not making a nuclear weapon.
And I'm proud of my former colleagues to the degree they're still around to hold fast on that.
Tulsi Gabbard will be presenting this kind of threat assessment next month, March.
Let's see what she says.
If she hews to what they've been saying since 2007, mind you, then we'll have something good going because there's a break on this.
But people are still confused because of stuff that Woodcopf Trump and everybody else says.
And what conceivable justification can the government offer for an attack on Iran?
I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first question.
What conceivable justification can the government offer for an attack on Iran?
Oh, because Netanyahu would really like us to do that.
Well, they're not going to say that, but that's the true reason.
But what public justification will they make?
Well, they'll make, well, they're not going to do it, Judge.
You know, you have been saying it's not a question of if, but when.
And, you know, I've been saying all along, it's not a question of if.
It's not a question of when.
It's a question of they're going to do it.
Now, we have not mentioned by either of my colleagues earlier this morning.
We have negotiations restarting in Geneva with the Iranians on Thursday.
We have the delivery of the Iranian paper that they promised tomorrow.
Okay.
So things are moving in a hopeful direction.
I can't believe that people missed those things.
In other words, when Trump told Netanyahu, what was it, on the 11th, I think, of February, look, we make no agreement with you.
We insist that we go to negotiations.
Okay, that was the 11th.
17th was the second meeting between U.S. and Iranian negotiators.
And Trump said this went very well.
And Netanyahu said, oh, my God, I better get back to Washington to find out what's going on here.
He came, he saw, but he didn't conquer.
And so this business about, you know, Bibi being able to influence Trump, I know it's bizarre to suggest it, but this time it looks like Trump resisted BB.
And we ought to recognize that.
It's clear as can be.
I insisted.
I insisted that we go to negotiations.
The negotiations begin or continue on Thursday in Geneva.
And the Iranian president said just yesterday, look, there are signs of hope here.
There are signs of progress.
There are signs that we can work with nuclear enrichment.
That's not a problem.
They put highly enriched uranium in some other country or something like that.
They're not going to renew work on a nuclear weapon.
So because most people don't know that, Trump, as I suggested on Friday, Trump will be able to say, ah, success.
We scared the hell out of them.
And they're not going to work on a nuclear weapon.
And they're going to put their highly rich uranium in Turkey or Russia or something like that.
Success.
He might even say that tomorrow in the State of the Union.
Here's BB Netanyahu going way back with his consistent madness.
Number four, Chris.
The deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.
And 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.
Almost 2002 Redux00:04:34
That would place a militant Islamic terrorist weeks away from having the fissile material for an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs.
Now, even though some of that goes back 10, 11 years, that's the type of pressure that is being put on the president, no?
Judge, it's very enlightening.
I'm really glad you did this clip.
It brackets 2007.
Right.
2002, 2012, and so forth.
Okay.
Now, in 2007, somebody got it into their mind, you know, look, this debacle in Iraq was done by liars and cheaters who said that the Iraqis had WMD, they almost have nuclear weapons, and they're about to give them to terrorists.
We know that's the fact because the chief of British intelligence told Tony Blair on the 23rd of July, 2002, Bush has decided on war against Iraq.
The war will be justified by the conjunction of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists, which means, of course, we'll say they have weapons of mass destruction.
They're going to give them to terrorists.
And here's the crowning sentence in that paragraph.
These are the minutes that briefed Tony Blair after Sir John Deerlove, the head of MI6, came back from Langley, having talked to George Tennant.
Okay, this is the crowning thing.
But the intelligence and the facts are being fixed around the policy, period, end quote.
Okay, documentary evidence.
Now, why do I mention that?
Because it's the same.
You saw the same rationale, nuclear weapons, they're going to give them to terrorists.
And so somebody in the right mind in Washington said, my God, we have to have an estimate because they're going after Iran next, sure as can be.
It's in their doctrine, for God's sake, these neocons.
And so what happened?
They looked around in the CIA, couldn't find any decent manager to manage an honest estimate, went to the State Department, fellow named Tom Finger.
He came in with a State Department analyst, was given a whole year to do this, commissioned by Congress, and they decided in November 2007, Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon.
And we say this with high confidence, and we say this unanimously, all 14 U.S. intelligence community people at that time.
Now, that prevented them going from going after Iran because Bush said in his memoir, that estimate was terrible.
It deprived me of my options because how could I, this is a direct quote, how could I possibly justify attacking the nuclear facilities of a country that the intelligence community says has no active nuclear weapons program, end quote.
Bummer.
They had that in mind for 2008, the year they would ride out into the sunset.
And it was prevented by this honest estimate run by a State Department manager.
And we should be very proud of that because that was 2007.
It gave the lie to all the things that Netanyahu was saying and that previous estimates had said and prevented Bush and Cheney from doing this.
So the fact that Tulsi Gabbard stayed true to that under all the pressure, she must, no wonder they don't like her, right?
That was last March.
The statement is the statement that she made in March of 25, almost a year ago.
Say again?
One is the statement she made in March of 25, almost a year ago, from what you read earlier in this segment.
The same one to which the president referred on Air Force One.
I don't care what she says.
No.
No, that was she was talking about it was a different subject.
Let me.
All right.
All right.
Then it's irrelevant.
My misunderstanding of what the president said.
Here's the head of the Quincy Institute on Iran today, number five.
Misunderstanding Trump's Nuclear Stance00:04:13
Trump has been sold a narrative by the Israelis that portrays Iran far, far weaker than it actually is.
And as a result, he's adopting maximalist capitulation positions that are simply unrealistic based on how the power reality actually looks.
The Iranians are undoubtedly weaker than they were two years ago, but not as weak as the Israelis have been telling Trump they are.
And as a result, he is confused, frustrated that they haven't capitulated yet.
But the capitulation simply is not in the card because they're not as weak as Trump believes.
Unless this gets corrected, even if the Iranians put forward a very far-leaning proposal that is extremely attractive to the U.S., Trump may still say no because he's under the false belief that he can get something even better.
He's been educated now by the top military.
It's clear, I mean, it's clear to me at least.
Trump went off half-cocked here.
He said, hey, Raisin Kane, General Kane, can we obliterate Iran?
Yes, sir.
And he goes and he raises all these magnificent fighting forces around Iran.
And then somebody tells him, oh, wait a second.
Raising Kane, you ought to tell the president that we're not going to be able to have a regime change in this.
And we're going to run out of ammunition in two weeks.
And it might not be such a good idea at all.
And so what does Trump do?
For once, he reacts sensibly for lots of reasons, hearing from the Russians in that secure channel also, I'm sure.
And he says, okay, well, this is not, let's be able to say that we scared the hell out of them, right?
Okay.
And we'll have the best agreement that we can make in Geneva, and we'll sell that to the people as a victory.
And then we'll report what we do.
Will he back down?
Yeah, I think he's going to back down.
And it's very clear that the Iranians think so too.
They're much more upbeat on the coming negotiations than anyone else.
And they did promise a paper in two weeks.
They've now delivered or will deliver tomorrow, Tuesday.
And, you know, Trump has a way that he can back off just as I suggested on Friday with Vance saying four times in four minutes to one of your former Fox people, look, we have to protect, we have to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.
A nuclear, we got to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.
Well, that will be a great achievement because most of Americans don't know that they were not working on a nuclear weapon, at least not since the end of 2003.
And they'll rejoice and say, we dodged another bullet.
So we took a poll during this segment.
Ray indicates this belief that Trump will not strike Iran.
Do you agree?
Yes, I agree.
No, Trump will strike Iran.
58% disagree and say he will strike.
42% agree with you and say we'll not strike.
That number is going up.
Well, Judge, I don't really care about those polls.
I read the comments sometimes from Friday.
People saying, look, McGovern should retire.
He's old.
He, you know, he's naive.
He doesn't realize that Trump is really such a terrible guy.
Okay.
Well, I realize Trump is such a terrible guy, but I also realize that Trump has the midterms coming up because the Russia is threatening him in his ear.
And he has the prospect that he would have a bloody, bloody thing on his conscience if he goes forward.
So yeah, those kinds of polls are a little bit mischievous in my view.
Nicely put, Ray.
Thank you, my dear friend.
We'll see you Friday, if not sooner, if something monumental happens this week, like a peace agreement or a war, one or the other.