Feb. 24, 2026 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
29:28
PROF. John Mearsheimer : Trump Has No Offramp
Professor John Mearsheimer argues Trump has no escape from attacking Iran, despite warnings like General Kane’s January 2026 report on U.S. munitions shortages and NATO’s potential nuclear conflict risks under Article 5. He dismisses Trump’s claim of an "easily won" war as reckless, citing prolonged fallout and political backlash ahead of midterms. Mearsheimer blames Zionist advisors Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner for failed diplomacy, linking their influence to Israel’s control over U.S. Middle East policy—even extending to Jonathan Pollard’s controversial release. With Iran posing no threat and the Israel lobby rejecting any deal, like an improved JCPOA, Trump faces a no-win scenario, risking both military failure and political weakness. [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?
Bye, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Tuesday, February 24th, 2026.
Professor John Mearsharmer will be with us in just a moment on has Trump left himself an off-ramp with Iran.
But first, this.
Don't you just cringe when people say, I told you so.
Sorry.
I told you gold and silver would reap the benefits due to excessive money printing, inflation, and global uncertainty.
It's here.
It's happened.
Gold and silver have reached all-time highs.
Did you call Lear Capital and buy some?
It's not too late.
Experts are predicting higher prices ahead.
Why?
Nothing has changed.
Geopolitical chaos, cost of living crises, and a weaker dollar are driving central banks to boost their gold reserves.
Forecasts suggest gold could hit $6,000 an ounce and silver $200 an ounce.
Even Morgan Stanley ditched the 60-40 rule for 60-20-20, putting 20% into precious metals.
They're getting educated, and you should too.
Call the best in the business and the people I trust, Lear Capital.
Get their reports.
Get the facts.
Get some gold and silver.
Fell them the judge sent you and get up to $20,000 in bonus gold or silver.
Call 800-511-4620 or go to LearjudgeNapp.com.
Russians And Ukraine Conflict00:15:08
Professor Mirshamer, Good Day to you, my dear friend.
Welcome here.
Before we leave, I know you're traveling.
Safe Travels to you.
Thank you for coming on and accommodating my schedule.
And before we get to President Trump's choices, if he has any remaining with respect to Iran, do you place any significance in the Ukrainian use of a British missile and British and American intelligence to target successfully a Russian munitions factory 800 miles into Russia from the Ukraine-Russian border?
Well, I think what this represents is an increasing escalation by Ukraine against Russian targets.
And I think we're going to see more of this moving forward because it's one of the few cards that the Ukrainians have to play.
I don't place special emphasis on what happened.
I mean, I don't think it's a major escalatory step.
I think it is a middle-range escalatory step.
But what I think is that it all points to the fact that the Russians have to put an end to this war in 2026.
They just can't let this go on.
They have to make a major offensive effort over the course of 2026 to get some sort of armistice to bring the conflict to an end, because this is just going to get worse and worse for the Russians if they don't do something.
Scott Ritter says that the Russians view the munitions plant that was attacked in their top five in level of importance to their defense production.
In Ritter's personal view, it's number one of those five, but he recognizes that not all analysts agree with him.
Is there a reason you don't consider this escalatory?
And as you formulate your answer to that, can the Kremlin retaliate against Great Britain?
Well, there's no question it's escalatory.
I'm not denying that.
And I think what you've seen in this war is that both sides have marched up the escalation ladder.
You want to remember, in terms of past escalations, the Ukrainians, with assistance from the United States and Britain, invaded Mother Russia.
They put ground troops in there.
Furthermore, they hit one leg of the nuclear triad of nuclear forces.
Those were major league escalations, in my opinion.
Those were escalations of the sort we would have never even contemplated doing in the Cold War.
So hitting a missile factory is important, but it's not the same as those two.
Right.
I get it.
I get it.
That's an always rational answer from you.
But some of the Russian patience has been extraordinary.
I mean, this attack on President Putin's home, to me, is the equivalent of some foreign country attacking Mar-a-Lago while President Trump was in the White House.
Well, that's the third case, right?
Right, right.
And yet there's no massive response.
Can you imagine how we would respond if any country, just pick a country, North Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela, any country that has the ability to do it, attacked Mar-a-Lago?
I think that our response would be swift and massive.
Well, if you attack Britain or you attack any NATO country, you run the risk of getting into a war with NATO.
That's the problem that the Russians face.
I mean, they're up against Ukraine plus the West, but when you talk about the West, you're talking about NATO.
And there's an Article 5 guarantee built into the NATO treaty.
And the end result is if the Russians hit any NATO country, they run the risk that the Americans will be dragged in and they'll end up in a nuclear war.
And they want to go to great lengths to avoid that.
The point I would make is that I think the Russians are running out of patience.
I think the sort of argument that Scott and others make on the show is correct, that you can only push so far.
And at some point, the Russians will retaliate.
It's hard to say what that will look like.
I mean, there have been reports in the news that the French and the British are talking about giving nuclear weapons to Ukraine.
And Medvedev has made it clear that if that happens, Russia will not be reluctant to use nuclear weapons against either Britain or France in retaliation.
But you can see where this one is headed, right?
As long as the war continues and as long as the West continues to support the Ukrainians, the Russians become more and more desperate.
And at some point, I think they will lash out.
I do think that's coming.
As I said at the top of the show, I think that the Russians have to put an end to this war.
Right, right.
2026.
I don't think they can let this go on for another three years.
You know, you see stories in the newspaper that this may go on for another three years.
I think the Russians will not allow that to happen.
So the United States is negotiating with Russia.
I mean, does the chief Russian negotiator look Witkoff in the eye and say, nice try, Steve?
I mean, there's no question, but tell me if I'm wrong.
but that this couldn't have happened without the CIA.
We provide intelligence to Ukraine.
It can't conduct any of these operations without help from us.
I mean, we don't have boots on the ground and, you know, we're not flying the airplanes.
But the fact is that we support the Ukrainians.
They can't do it without us.
And the Russians have no doubt about this.
I think the Russians fully understand that they are effectively at war, not just with Ukraine, but with the West as well.
And despite all of President Trump's efforts to sort of wean the United States from the Ukraine war, that has not happened.
And that's why these negotiations, as I've said on numerous occasions, are basically kabuki theater.
They don't lead to anything.
But nevertheless, the United States continues to support Ukraine in important ways.
And then the question is, what are the Russians going to do about this?
I mean, if this, and maybe this is a little off your field because it's strictly in the intelligence community, if we are correct that the CIA orchestrated this, found the target, gave them the coordinates, whatever the CIA does, wouldn't that have to have been approved all the way up the chain of command?
Or can CIA officers do this on their own?
Just assuming they have the authority for it.
And the same with the attack on President Putin's house.
I think these operations have to be approved up the chain of command.
But the key question is how far up the chain of command.
And my guess would be, I mean, we don't have any hard evidence that it did not go to Trump.
I don't think Trump can be bothered with matters of this sort.
I think it was probably Ratcliffe who made the decision to do it.
I think Ratcliffe probably has a broad mandate from the White House to cause the Russians all sorts of trouble for the purposes of getting the Russians to make concessions at the negotiating table.
And I think probably this just required Ratcliffe's approval.
Just bear with me for a second, Professor.
Before we jump to Iran, here's Larry Johnson and me yesterday on the Russian negotiations with the United States.
How could this be a serious negotiation when the negotiators are Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, both avowed Zionists, number one?
And then how was it conducted?
Well, they had it in Geneva.
So here's Witkoff and Kushner.
First, they're in there, they're watching the Russians and Ukrainians, and they're part of that negotiations.
And hey, guys, time out.
And they run into another room.
Okay, they talk to the Omanis, who's playing as an intermediate.
They don't directly talk to the Iranians.
I mean, if this was a serious process, they'd be talking directly to the Iranians.
And they would actually send a negotiating team that was staffed with some people that had some expertise.
But, you know, they went in and said back and forth with the Omanis.
And then they run back into with the Ukrainians and Russians.
And then that's not serious negotiation.
This is amateur hour.
Do you agree with Larry?
100%.
I just have nothing to add to what he said.
He hit the nail right on the head.
Yeah, as we segue into Iran, the headline in today's Washington Post, I'm going to guess you've seen this.
Top general sees risk in attack on Iran.
Kane, the general's name, expresses concerns to Trump.
Munitions shortfalls, wavering allies cited.
Now, something like this didn't just pop up in the Washington Post on its own.
Somebody leaked this, either somebody adverse to the general, a friend of the general, or somebody in the CIA, which uses the Washington Post notoriously as its mouthpiece.
Do you think the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is saying to the president, we can't pull this off?
Well, let's go back to January 14th.
On the morning of January 14th, President Trump was, it looked like he was going to attack Iran that day.
And two things happened.
One is that Prime Minister Netanyahu called him up and said, please don't attack because we're not prepared.
We Israel are not prepared to deal with the counterattack that will come from Iran.
But furthermore, he talked to his military advisors that day who told him that they could not provide a set of options or military plan that would allow him to achieve a quick and decisive victory.
So what General Kane and his other military advisors were telling him on January 14th is that the military option did not look good.
What is happening now is that General Kane is telling him the same basic story.
We have more firepower in the region now, and we have more defensive capability in the region, which is why the Israelis are now willing to do it.
But with regard to General Kane and the military, the story has not changed.
And if you look carefully at what we might try to do and what kind of forces we have to achieve those objectives, going to war is a losing proposition.
And this is what Kane is saying.
It's really quite remarkable that despite the fact that Trump seems enthusiastic about using military force, there is no available strategy to achieve any one of the objectives that he desires.
Here's the president's response early this morning when he saw the story in the Washington Post.
The story does not attribute this vast wealth of knowledge to anyone and is 100% incorrect.
General Kane, like all of us, would like not to see war, but if a decision is made on going against Iran at a military level, it is his opinion that it will be something easily won.
I think what the president has said is nonsense.
Of course it's nonsense.
You know, you could make a case.
I wouldn't make it, but you could make a case that, you know, with a little bit of luck, we could win a limited victory and therefore we should attack.
You could make that argument.
What would a limited victory be?
Well, you could have small-scale strikes, take out some important targets, convince the Iranians not to attack as they have promised to attack.
Tell them that these limited attacks will be all that they will have to face.
Get them not to retaliate.
And then you declare victory.
President Trump gives a speech and says he did X, Y, and Z.
I don't think that'll work, by the way.
This is why I'm arguing that we shouldn't do this.
I don't think it would work.
But I'm saying that there'll be clever briefers.
You want to understand that Trump will be surrounded by clever briefers who will make those kinds of arguments, that Iran is weak and it'll be easy to convince them not to retaliate.
And if we attack in a limited way, dot, dot, dot.
You know the story.
I don't believe that, right?
But I'm just saying that that may happen and he may then go.
But the idea that this is going to be easy is ridiculous.
Cain told him on January 14th of this year that we didn't have a military option in effect.
And what is going on with this story that was leaked to the Washington Post is that Cain is again telling him we don't have a viable military option.
And I would imagine that whoever leaked this wants to prevent the war.
And you know from the news reports, and it makes common sense that his political advisors, Trump's political advisors, are telling him not to do this because they understand the chances of this working out militarily are very small, if not zero.
And the political consequences of a failed military operation, especially one where we get ourselves into a forever war, will be disastrous for him in the fall.
He's already in deep trouble on the political front vis-a-vis these upcoming midterm elections.
The last thing he needs is a failed military operation in Iran.
I'd like you to tell me what you think of the following.
Chris, cut number two.
Political Price of Advocacy00:11:38
Christian Zionism.
I want to go back because that's where we started.
I'm not going to let you off on this because you have went at it three times that God gave this land to this people.
And so it is entirely fair for me with respect to ask what land are you talking about?
Because I just read Genesis 15, as I have many times.
And that land, I think it says from the Nile to the Euphrates, which is once again, basically the entire Middle East.
So God gave that land to his people, the Jews, or he didn't.
You're saying he did.
What does that mean?
Does Israel have the right to that land?
Because you're appealing to Genesis.
You're saying that's the original deed.
It would be fine if they took it all.
Now, that has caused a major conflagration in the Middle East, as you can imagine.
Yeah, I mean, it's quite shocking that he said that.
It's not shocking that he believes it.
I mean, he's a died-in-the-wool Christian Zionist, and hardly surprising he believes that Israel should own most of the territory in the Middle East.
But to actually say that when you are representing the Trump administration, when you're the U.S. ambassador to Israel, is quite remarkable.
Look, it's a disgrace that this man is the U.S. ambassador to Israel, just like it's a disgrace that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are our two principal diplomats dealing with Middle East issues.
We should have people in those positions who have no attachment to Israel.
The United States of America should have America first people in those positions.
And it does not.
And we, as a consequence, have gotten ourselves into serious trouble.
The clip that you played with Larry gets at this.
I mean, the idea that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who are two ardent Zionists, deeply committed to Israel, are negotiating on our behalf with Iran, the truth is it's outrageous.
This should not be the case.
People who have no attachment to Israel whatsoever and who are American firsters should be handling those negotiations.
And the same thing goes with regard to who is our ambassador in.
Israel.
We should have an ambassador who is not a Christian Zionist, who is not a Zionist, period.
We should have someone who is neutral on this issue.
Jared Kushner's father, who is the United States ambassador to France, has been prohibited from communicating with anybody in the French government.
You can't make this stuff up because of his unwillingness to explain things he said and various American positions to his counterparts in the French government.
Well, the Huckabee stuff gets even worse, Professor.
You're familiar.
I know you are, because you know all these things and because we have discussed it with the horrific crimes of Jonathan Pollard.
Watch this, Chris, cut number nine.
Jonathan Pollard did something that was terribly wrong.
He sold secrets.
He shouldn't have done it.
He was sentenced to 30 years in prison and spent 30.
Actually, he was, I think, yeah, I think he was sentenced to maybe more than 30 years, but he spent 30 years in prison.
Most people convicted of something similar, which was one count, I believe, would have spent two to four, but he spent 30.
So it, to me, was not as big a deal that I had this basically courtesy meeting.
He wanted to thank me for being nice to him when his wife died.
That's pretty much the same.
You advocated for his release when you ran for, I remember it, in 2011, long before he had served 30 years.
He served an extraordinary length of time for the crime that he was convicted of, to which he pled guilty.
And it would seem to now be, I think, a matter of good will and a good faith gesture for the president to give clemency and release him.
This was the greatest traitor in modern American history who sold our battle plans, sold our battle plans against the Soviet Union, our main enemy in the Cold War, to the Israeli government, which, according to our Reagan CIA director, Bill Casey, then gave them to the Soviet Union.
Why advocate for that guy's release before he serves his full sentence?
Because I had a number of friends that suggested that he had more than served time and he didn't want to live in the U.S. anymore.
He wanted to live in Israel.
The interview that Mike Huckabee gave with Tucker Carlson is all the more proof why he should never have been nominated or confirmed by the Senate.
You mentioned that earlier.
He's not qualified for this position.
Absolutely.
I mean, the fact that he met.
By the way, that character next to you, that is Pollard.
Yeah, no, I know his picture very well.
But the fact that he met with Jonathan Pollard in a friendly way, I mean, it was a social gathering.
It was the two of them just getting together in a friendly way is just outrageous.
I don't know what else to say.
And it just shows you the influence that Israel and the Israel lobby has in the United States.
I mean, you want to remember that Sheldon Adelson played a key role in getting Jonathan Pollard out of jail.
And Sheldon Adelson provided an airplane to fly Pollard to Israel, where he was treated as a conquering hero.
And now here we have Mike Huckabee, who is meeting with and effectively embracing Jonathan Pollard, who as Tucker Carlson said, is probably the greatest traitor in American history.
You really just wonder what this says about the United States and its foreign policy.
And I think it's just, again, I've used the word too many times, but I'll say it again.
It's outrageous.
You see who's there greeting him when he's kissing the ground.
You know who that is, but the mask on, that's Netanyahu himself.
Of course, because he's a conquering hero over there.
He did wonderful things for Israel.
So this country lauds a man who stole valuable secrets from the United States, secrets which, if in the hands of the wrong people, could have jeopardized the lives of American citizens working for the government.
Same country that attacked one of our ships and killed 38 sailors and wounded another 100.
And this is our best friend?
Well, you know what the answer is to that.
Yes.
The answer is the lobby, the donor class.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
I mean, they have huge influence.
And to go back to the whole question of whether we're going to attack Iran or not, if you look at this interview or this story in the Washington Post and you look at where we are in terms of whether or not we can succeed in attack, in an attack against Iran, it's quite clear we just shouldn't do this.
So then the question is, why is it likely we will do it?
And the reason is it's likely we will do it because of the influence of the lobby on President Trump.
He's under tremendous pressure from people in the lobby and from Israel itself to attack Iran and to solve Israel's problems.
It's not in our national interest to attack Iran.
And in fact, as we've talked about on the show before, Iran is not a threat to the United States.
All right, here's the $64,000 question.
Does Donald Trump have an off-ramp?
Can he get out of this unscathed?
No, he cannot get out of it unscathed.
He has two terrible options.
One, if he attacks, he's not going to succeed militarily, and he's going to be in a long war with Iran in all likelihood.
And that is not a good option.
But if he doesn't attack, he will be crucified by the lobby and by Israel for being weak and for not having taken care of Israel.
And they'll portray this whole situation, not in terms of Israel's interest, but in terms of America's interests.
They'll say he let the American people down.
He talked tough, but he didn't deliver in the end, and that we're greatly threatened by the fact that he didn't attack Iran.
That'll be the argument they'll make.
And he'll pay a price for that.
There's no question about that.
He'll pay a political price for that.
So he loses either way.
And then the question is, which is the least bad alternative?
And I would argue at this point, it's quite clear that the least bad alternative is to face the heat from Israel and face the heat from the lobby.
And he would be worse off if he went to war against Iran.
But he's boxed himself in.
He has no good option here.
If he shows up tonight at the State of the Union and waves a piece of paper and says, this has President Pazeshkin's signature on it and mine, we've come to an agreement, no nuclear enrichment, therefore no attack, Netanyahu will try to undo that, will he not?
Not only Netanyahu, the lobby will.
This is what happened with the JCPOA, right?
I mean, what we're talking about here in these negotiations that are taking place now between the Iranians on one side and us on the other side is coming up with a maybe improved version of the JCPOA.
But we're not going to get anything more than that.
And as we all know, the Israelis, especially Benjamin Netanyahu, were adamantly opposed to the JCPOA because it left Iran with some nuclear enrichment capability.
And that is unacceptable to the Israelis.
So the piece of paper he'll be waving tonight in this hypothetical scenario you were describing will still leave the Iranians with a nuclear enrichment capability.
This will enrage the Israelis.
It will enrage the lobby.
It will cause Trump all sorts of problems.
It won't be a deal that anybody who is pro-Israel will be happy with.
Professor Mersheimer, thank you very much.
Thanks for your great analysis.
Safe travels.
We'll look forward to seeing you next week.
Likewise, Judge.
Be well.
Thank you.
And coming up later today at 2 o'clock this afternoon on all of this, Matt Ho and Matt has some very interesting insights from a military perspective of the value or uselessness of all of our equipment there surrounding Iran.
Kwatkowski's Restraints00:00:08
And at three o'clock, Colonel Karen Kwatkowski, what restraints does the government recognize, if any, on its own exercises of power?