March 2, 2026 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
32:18
Aaron Maté : Did Netanyahu Shape Trump’s Iran Policy?
Aaron Maté exposes how Netanyahu pressured Trump into a March 2026 U.S.-led Iran invasion—dubbed the worst since Iraq—after failing to secure regime change through failed Geneva talks, where Witkoff and Kushner demanded Iran dismantle its Navy. The attack, framed as preemptive, targeted civilian sites like Tehran’s neonatal unit (165 children killed), with no U.S. denial despite clear evidence of high-tech strikes; Senator Warner admitted no Iranian threat existed. Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA and acceptance of a Palestinian two-state solution contrasted with U.S.-Israeli refusal to negotiate, while Israel’s press freedom abuses—like CNN reporter detentions—mirror past journalist crackdowns. The war, a joint operation, escalates risks of nuclear confrontation as civilian casualties mount, revealing a coordinated push for regime change under false pretenses. [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 Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026.
Aaron Mate joins us now.
Aaron, my friend, thank you for accommodating my schedule, no matter what we're talking about.
Before we get into anything granular about what the Israelis told Trump and whether they forced him to jump the gun and all that, give me your view, big picture of the Israeli-U.S. invasion that began on Saturday morning.
I think it's the most catastrophic decision by a U.S. president since George W. Bush invaded Iraq.
There was no reason whatsoever for this aggression.
The only reason is that Iran exists outside of U.S.-Israeli control and resists Israeli-U.S. aggression, specifically the Greater Israel Project, which says Israel can deny Palestinians their rights to freedom and steal as much land as it wants.
And that's why they've been marketed for regime change for a very long time.
And that's why the Trump administration pretended for the second consecutive time to engage in diplomacy while building up a military campaign.
And last time, they kept it, or the U.S. did just kept it to nuclear sites.
This time they're going, as Trump has said, for outright regime change, fulfilling what Benjamin Nenya, who bragged about, he's been trying to get the U.S. to do for 40 years.
Well, this time they're bombing schools and hospitals.
We know that.
They killed infamously 160 little girls.
No response from Heg Seth, Rubio, or the White House.
They destroyed the neonatal unit of a major medical center in downtown Tehran.
Professor Mirandi, who will be on with us later in the week, was just texting with Chris, who said the bombing has resumed in Tehran at civilian, decidedly non-military targets.
They just don't seem to care.
This is not a case of missiles going astray.
No, and on the issue of the girls' school, where the young girls are still being buried.
you know, dozens of victims.
I believe the most recent count is over 165 dead, mostly young girls.
Rubio was asked about that yesterday.
He said, well, if we did it, it wasn't intentional.
And that's his way of saying that we did it.
Because if the U.S. and Israel didn't do it, they would tell us by now.
It's incredibly easy to track where these high-tech missiles that they fired land.
They know exactly what happened.
They know that they killed these children.
And the fact that they haven't outright denied it yet says that they know that they did it.
And they're just waiting until weeks pass to admit it because they don't want to interfere right now with their intent to inflict more casualties in Iran by bombing civilian targets.
This is a million plus people at the collective funeral for these little girls.
Yes.
And I fear we'll be seeing many more scenes like this because look, especially with Israel involved, you're talking about a government that we've just seen wage a more than two year long genocidal assault on a besieged concentration camp with no regard for civilian life, where the aim of the so-called Gaza war was to destroy Gaza, make it unlivable.
And knowing, as the U.S. and Israel do, that there is actually a strong base of support for the government inside of Iran.
It's not the entire country, but as you can see from images like this, there are a lot of people who do actually support their government and who, regardless of how they feel about their government and the grievances they may have, do not support U.S.-Israeli efforts to destroy their country.
And so I fear, because we're dealing with, especially Israel here, which has no problem bombing civilians and in fact, intends to bomb civilians, we'll be seeing many more funerals like this.
What is the Israeli passion for assassination?
Well, in general, we're dealing with a government of just outright supremacists, racists, who view the indigenous people of the region, which Israel has colonized as inferior.
I mean, that's who the Israeli government is across the spectrum, whether it's Netanyahu or his more liberal opponents.
To go in as a European settler state and steal someone's land, rule over them, occupy them, deny them the right to vote, steal their trees, kill their children.
You have to be an outright bigot and see everyone as inferior and that you're divinely entitled to do everything you're doing, as people like Mike Huckabee also see their region.
So they just like to kill people because they have no other way of governing.
The idea of diplomacy, of engagement, of coexistence doesn't even appeal to them.
Anyone who doesn't accept their rule has to be eliminated.
And that's why they killed the Ayatollah.
And that's why they'll continue to kill as many people as they can.
As Larry Johnson pointed out, the Ayatollah is the one person, the one person who stood between Iran and the development of a nuclear weapon.
He and he alone prevented that from happening, and they murdered him.
I certainly think that killing the Ayatollah increases the chances that Iran will get a nuclear weapon.
The problem is that Iran still has to face is that if the U.S. and Israel pick up any trace of them trying to do that, and I believe Scott Ritter's warned about this, that in that case, Israel and the U.S. would use nukes.
And in fact, Israel is so crazy that I think their threshold for using nuclear weapons is even lower.
So that is something to take into account.
And yes, but look, when it comes to seeking peaceful resolutions, not seeking nuclear weapons, the Iranian government signed on to Obama's JCPOA.
The Trump State Department, after Trump took office, certified multiple times that Iran was complying.
Trump blew up that deal, and he sabotaged diplomacy ever since.
And I have to stress something that the Iranian government is not just on the issue of nuclear weapons, have they been sort of moderate and restrained.
They've also been restrained on the core issue at the heart of all Middle East or West Asia strife, which is they've accepted that the global consensus for resolving the conflict in the Middle East is for Palestinians to be granted self-determination.
And in Palestinians' case, that means accepting, as Hamas did, a state in just 22% of their stolen homeland.
So Iran has effectively previously endorsed the global consensus for how to resolve this, which is a two-state solution, which is a deeply unfair solution because it keeps in place an Israeli apartheid regime in its 1967 borders.
But Iran has actually previously accepted that.
And just a few weeks ago, the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Arachi, gave a very important speech in Doha where he laid out again that the problem In the in West Asia, which has to be addressed, is occupation and the Greater Israel Project.
And he basically said that if the occupation ends and if Palestinian refugees are either given the right of return or are fairly compensated by Israel for the homes that were stolen from them, then everything can be resolved.
So that's Iran's extremely moderate position and in line with the entire world, except for two actors, which is the U.S. and Israel, who insist that there can be no peace in Palestine, that Israel can steal and kill, can steal as much land as it wants and kill as many people as it wants.
Iran's Moderate Position00:03:02
The defenders of the Trump administration have taken to make the absurd argument that this is not a war.
Here's a montage put together.
Some of it is ridiculous, some of it is deplorable by our friends at CNN, Chris Cutt number 25.
And we may have casualties that often happens in war.
I don't know if this is technically a war.
We didn't start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it.
This isn't a war.
We haven't declared war.
The Secretary of Defense, who calls himself the Secretary of War, said today this is a war.
We set the terms of this war from start to finish.
Nobody should classify this as war.
It is combat operations.
War is hell and always will be.
Strategic strikes are not war.
I guess they're making that argument because they know that under the laws of war, both international and domestic, they don't come even close to complying.
The first requirement is that war is initiated by a legitimate authority.
And of course, it wasn't.
It was initiated by the president, not by the Congress.
It would be funny if it wasn't so criminal.
The complete incoherence.
Unlike the Bush administration, which at least tried to make a case to the world, you know, Colin Powell went before the UN and lied through his teeth.
And, you know, Trump went to Congress.
Sorry, Bush went to Congress.
He didn't go to the UN Security Council, which makes it illegal, but at least he did go to Congress.
Trump administration hasn't bothered to do any of that.
And it hasn't bothered to put together a coherent explanation for why they had the authority to go to war and why they went to war in the first place.
And whether it's even a war.
They can't even get that part straight.
It's just such a farce.
So CNN is just reporting that its reporter and camera crew have been detained in Tel Aviv while live reporting near IDF headquarters after Iran missile strikes.
Police halted the broadcast, confiscated the phones, citing expired press credentials and filming a sensitive security site.
They're in custody.
Both are reported in good health.
Turkey calls it press freedom violation and seeks an immediate release.
Israel applies military censorship on the strike details during the attack.
This is some background role that we have of this happening.
I guess this is no surprise to you at all.
This is the guy that they arrested.
It reminds me of what happened to my gray zone colleague, Jeremy Lafredo, when he was reporting inside of Israel and he went to some areas near an Israeli military site showing that Iran's missiles had penetrated Israeli defenses.
And for doing that, he was kidnapped by the Israeli government, put in a torture dungeon, essentially.
Agreement on False Narratives00:14:42
He could hear Palestinian prisoners being tortured, and eventually he was kicked out of the country.
So, yeah, this is what Israel does to reporters.
What will this attack do for American credibility in other negotiations?
I mean, here we have for the second time in eight months the revelation of a negotiation as a subterfuge to create a false sense of security.
Trump's people did it to Iran in June.
Now they did it to Iran again in March.
I'm going to play a clip, which you sent us, which is very telling of Witkoff on this.
But what are your thoughts on this?
Well, even if this wasn't happening, I mean, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff as negotiators on other fronts, what have they accomplished?
I mean, look at Ukraine, where simply the Trump administration can't make up its mind.
Yes, you have people like JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard who want to bring the proxy war to an end, but Trump is also surrounded, as we can see now with what he's doing in Iran, by hardcore neocons who are reflexively allergic to any act of diplomacy.
And that's why you've seen this confusion happen with the U.S. and Russia over what was agreed to in Anchorage.
Russia talks as if there was some understanding reached, which the U.S. has ignored.
And I expect that to continue.
I don't think already U.S. credibility could have gotten it any lower.
So I don't see that this could have that much worse of an impact because already the U.S. was just allergic to negotiations.
Here's Witkoff blowing smoke at Sean Hannity last night.
Chris, cut number 26.
You're a negotiator.
You've run the most successful businesses, built some of the most beautiful golf courses.
It defies all logic and reason for them to sit there as if Midnight Hammer never happened and dictate to you that the one thing that President Trump insisted on, they can't get a nuclear weapon.
They're going to go forward anyway.
How stupid are they?
Were they?
They're gone now.
Well, it was pretty silly, but they thought they could strong-arm us.
You know, President Trump sent me and Jared there to really determine on his behalf whether they were serious about doing a deal that addressed his objectives, which are elimination of their missile program, elimination of their advocacy and support for proxies, which is destabilizing the entire Middle East,
elimination of their Navy so we can have freedom of the seas and not be threatened with the shutdown of the Gulf of Hormuz.
And finally, no nuclear enrichment that can get them to weapons grade, which means no nuclear bomb.
And we went in there and tried to make a fair deal with them.
And it was very, very clear that it was going to be impossible probably by the end of the second meeting.
But we then went back for the third meeting just to give it the last college try.
And of course, they thought they wanted us to report positivity.
It was not positive that meeting.
Know that he was used as a pawn by his friend the president?
He definitely knows.
He definitely knows that his whole presence along with Jared Kushner in Geneva was a complete ruse.
And he's continuing that deception now.
There's so much disingenuousness going on here and so much cynicism.
I want to make sure I get to it all.
First of all, he's introducing a brand new demand that at least I hadn't heard before.
Now he's saying that Trump was insisting that Iran abandon its Navy so that it can no longer, in his words, threaten the Gulf of Hormuz, which, of course, it's not a Gulf.
It's a straight.
So even geographically, he doesn't understand what he's talking about.
So now you're asking a sovereign country to dismantle their entire Navy?
I hadn't heard that demand before.
So he's just only doubling down on what he had said to Fox News in an interview that we've talked about previously, where he said, you know, I don't understand, and Trump doesn't understand why Iran isn't offering total capitulation.
And so now he's revealing that part of the capitulation he demanded was that Iran give up its Navy, which is just ridiculous.
He's also continuing to conflate the pursuit of nuclear weapons with having a nuclear program.
And he knows that Iran is entitled under the Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
The Trump administration has defined essentially any enrichment as being a nuclear weapons program, which is just so ridiculous when you have enrichment at the low levels that it was kept to under the JCPOA, which Iran has agreed to once again.
Iran also agreed to international inspections.
Iran also agreed to ship uranium out of the country so that in the words of the Omani foreign minister who brokered these talks, there would be zero stockpiling of uranium.
He knows all that.
So he's just simply being totally disingenuous in agreeing with Sean Hannity that that meant that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon when he knows that that's not true.
And he's also being disingenuous on a whole other level too, which is that all these demands he says that Iran was refusing, which were ridiculous to begin with, him and Kushner agreed to only discuss the nuclear file.
Because Iran was very clear, we're not going to discuss our support for our quote-unquote proxies, which in real life means allies.
And we're not going to give up our right to defend ourselves by dismantling our Navy and our ballistic missile program.
We will resolve the nuclear issue with you.
That was Iran's position.
And Jared Kushner and Steve Wickoff agreed to that.
I know this because an Iranian official who was present told me this.
And that's why afterwards, the same official told me there was good progress.
And we have more talks on two different tracks for this week.
And the Omani foreign minister said the exact same thing.
They weren't lying when they said that, look, you know, progress was made because they were under the impression that Steve Wickhoff and Jared Kushner were okay with just resolving the nuclear issue.
And by the way, Iran especially is not going to discuss all these other issues, including its right to defend itself, when the Trump administration wasn't even offering meaningful sanctions relief.
So, I mean, the Trump administration wouldn't even talk about lifting all of its maximum pressure sanctions that destroy Iran's economy.
So even if Iran did want to talk about all these other issues, which I don't think it would, but even if they were to entertain the possibility, they're not going to do that when you're not even offering them any sanctions relief.
But regardless, Wickoff is basically pretending as if Iran, it was Iran that refused to discuss all these other issues when it was him, because he was pretending, along with Kushner, that they were willing to just focus and resolve the nuclear file.
They were not willing to resolve it because really they were just buying time to plan a regime change operation, which they launched on Saturday morning.
I want you to tell me if you think the Russians will trust Witkoff and Kushner.
And before you answer, watch this, Chris number 24.
We keep hearing about the goals of this war regularly, but there is no proof, there is no evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.
And this was what's used as the justification behind unleashing this war.
There is no evidence.
And there is information from IAEA and from the American intelligence services that Surin did not manufacture nuclear weapons and did not have any plans to manufacture nuclear weapons.
For those taking the program audio only, that was the translation from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Lavrov has forgotten more than Witkoff and Kushner know.
I mean, look, Kushner and Witkoff are not diplomats.
They're just there to pretend to be diplomats so that Trump can carry out his various acts of aggression.
In the case of Russia and Ukraine, look, what Russia knows is that Trump himself personally is not ideologically invested in this proxy war, unlike he is with Iran, where clearly he was willing to destroy what was left of his own credibility and sacrifice U.S. troops and sacrifice countless people in West Asia to help Israel fulfill its long-time goal of regime change.
And that ideological zeal speaks to who surrounds him, you know, the Adelsons who helped fund his political rise and all the neocons in the Senate who, people like Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton, who are now praising him as essentially the greatest person to ever lived because he carried out regime change or is trying to carry out regime change in Iran.
In Russia, there isn't that same ideological commitment from Trump.
And also, Russia can really defend itself in ways that Iran can't because Russia has nuclear weapons.
That's why we're in this mess to begin with, because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, as John Mearsheimer, I know, has long argued and is looking increasingly vindicated on that front.
So because Russia ultimately can defend itself, there's only so far that the U.S. could go even if it wanted to continue this proxy war.
And so, but because also they're completely allergic to diplomacy and incompetent, I don't see them being able to, I'm talking about Jerry Kushner and Steve Bukov being able to broker a deal.
So as many of your guests on the show have long predicted, I think that the Russia-Ukraine war simply will get decided on the battlefield.
Hi, thank you, Aaron.
One last thing I want to ask you.
Do you, and I forgot, do you think that Netanyahu forced Trump's hand by saying we're going in with you or without you?
Or do you think the attack was planned all along back at Mar-a-Lago shortly before New Year's Eve?
I think it's the latter.
This was planned all along, but certainly it was egged on by Netanyahu.
But amazingly, the former, the first scenario that you laid out, is now the administration's official rationale.
You saw Marco Rubio say that we had to attack Iran because we knew that Israel was going to attack Iran.
And once Israel attacked Iran, Iran would retaliate by hitting our troops.
So to protect our troops, we had to bomb first, which is just such a farce.
Of course, if the U.S. didn't want Israel to attack Iran and protect everyone, it could have told it that.
Instead, Rubio was saying that Israel made us do it.
He's also saying that America first means that when Israel wants war, America goes first.
That's what he's officially saying.
I don't actually believe that.
I think they were in on this from the start.
It's long been in the works.
They tried this last June.
They had to call it off because Israel wasn't prepared to handle all the incoming Iranian retaliations.
They worked on setting up for a brand new round.
Trump sent all those forces to surround Iran, and now they're doing it.
So Rubio's explanation is farcical, and it just shows how subservient to Israel the Trump administration is.
That Rubio thinks this is a legitimate explanation to say that we went on to war on behalf of a foreign country.
But I also don't think it's fully true.
I think that this was a joint operation from the start, and they finally did it.
Here's Rubio yesterday basically saying Israel made us do it.
The second question that been asked is, why now?
Well, there's two reasons why now.
The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States.
The orders had been delegated down to the field commanders.
It was automatic, and in fact, it bear to be true because, in fact, within an hour of the initial attack on the leadership compound, the missile forces in the south and in the north, for that matter, had already been activated to launch.
In fact, those had already been pre-positioned.
The third is the assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties.
And so the president made the very wise decision.
We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action.
We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces.
And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed.
And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn't.
Like this, then I'm reminded that it is a felony to lie to the federal government.
But it is obviously not a felony for the federal government to lie to us.
What doesn't he just say?
We agreed to this back in New Year's Eve.
Well, he can't say that because that would show that this entire war is based on just complete lies.
So they've workshopped multiple lies.
This is not the first lie they've told to try to justify the act of aggression that they launched against Iran.
The first lie, which they started putting out over the weekend, was that we picked up intelligence of an imminent Iranian attack on our forces.
Not what Rubio is saying here, that we knew that if Israel attacked first, they would attack us.
He said that Iran was going to start hostilities by attacking our forces.
That's what they were telling the public.
They got many of their flunkies to go on places like CNN and say that pundits like Scott Jennings were tasked to put this out.
But then what happened was congressional sources, including Senator Mark Warner, who's traditionally a total war hawk and essentially supports, I think, the concept of regime change in Iran.
He came out and had to admit, actually, no, when we were briefed by the Pentagon, there was no intelligence at all of an Iranian attack on our forces.
So now Ruby was trying this one out that, okay, Israel was going to attack first.
And we knew that when Israel attacked, Iran would hit our forces.
So we had to attack, which in itself is just as ridiculous because, of course, where is it written in U.S. law?
I mean, even if this cover story were true, which is not, because the U.S. and Israel were planning to attack together.
But even taking it at face value, where is it written in U.S. law that the U.S. has to go to war on behalf of Israel?
If you know Israel is about to launch a devastating war that you're not necessarily on board with, you tell them not to do it.
And you tell them we're not going to back you up if you do it.
That's what they could have done.
But of course, they were in total lockstep with Israel.
So that's why they're coming up with this cover story.
Let's Contain Israel's War00:05:43
And they've come up with more.
Ruby also talked about how Iran's conventional military buildup was going to be a shield for a future nuclear weapons program, which also is just such a farce on many levels because he knows there was no Iranian nuclear weapons program.
He knows there were multiple diplomatic opportunities to keep Iran's enrichment stockpile at essentially zero.
And he also knows, if you can read the Pentagon's own intelligence reports and the U.S. national threat assessment that Tulsi Gabbard put out one year ago this month, that not only does Iran not have a nuclear weapons program, but that Iran's military spending, and this is from the threat assessment report, which anyone can read, is intended to defend the country and deter an Israeli-U.S. attack.
I'm pretty much quoting verbatim from that report.
So they know that Iran is gearing its military posture defensively to defend itself from Israeli U.S. military attack.
But because the U.S. and Israel want regime change and they want to rule over the region with no resistance, having a conventionally armed Iran that can defend itself, that's deemed to be a threat.
And that's why they went to war.
Chris, play just the first five or 10 seconds of cut number two again.
I want to point out why he is where he is.
The second question that I've been asked is, why now?
Well, there's two reasons why now.
The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran He's in a public hallway in the Capitol building outside the SCIF.
The SCIF is the secret room in which he and members of the military brief the gang of eight.
The statute requires they brief the entire Congress.
They don't trust the entire Congress, so they brief the gang of eight.
That's the Republican and Democratic leadership in both houses and the Republican and Democratic leadership in the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee.
What he tells them, they have taken an oath not to reveal.
So they cannot tell their colleagues in the Congress.
They cannot tell their constituents who sent them there.
They cannot tell the press, which is the eyes and ears of the public.
But the press knew he was in there and they more or less ambushed him the minute he came out.
Some of what he revealed, he too was not supposed to say, but he said it anyway.
Here's Tucker Carlson, our longtime friend on this very subject matter, number 23.
Bibi told the president of the United States, you can join me or not, but I'm going.
And the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio said this in a call to congressional leaders yesterday.
He said Israel said they were going.
And at that point, you really only have two choices.
You can get on board and try and help or contain Israel's war.
That's part of the calculation here.
Israel's going.
Let's try and keep this within bounds.
Let's try to be a moderating force on this adventure, whatever it turns out to be.
Or you can tell Israel no.
But that was not even on the table.
That's never been on the table.
No one has ever in the last 63 years considered doing that.
Really?
The last president to do that was John F. Kennedy in 1962, and he got in a, not as famous as it should be, dispute with the founding prime minister of Israel, then the prime minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, over Israel's nuclear program at Demona.
And then President Kennedy said, no, I don't believe in nuclear proliferation.
This is one of the pillars of my administration.
And you can't keep testing.
And I'm demanding inspections.
And of course, he was not able to make good on those promises because he was killed in November of 1963.
And the person who took his place is vice president Lyndon Johnson gave a green light to the Israeli nuclear program.
So that was the last time an American president said no, a hard no to Israel, tried to restrain its core ambitions.
Mearsheimer agrees with you that this was not provoked the last minute by BB.
We're going in with you or without you.
That had been planned for months.
Yeah, I mean, the only part I'd quibble with there in this account is that Israel was going to go in regardless.
And I'm not saying Tucker is saying that, but I'm saying that's what Rubio was saying.
That, well, Israel was going to go.
And so we had a choice as to whether or not to go in or not.
And if we got in, then we can contain the fallout.
Israel would not act without U.S. permission.
It's not powerful enough to attack Iran on its own.
It needs the U.S. to sign off on its aggression, which the U.S. always does without exception.
Joe Biden did resist Israeli efforts to get him to join a war on Iran, but he pretty much greenlit everything else.
And the difference, main difference between Trump and Biden is that Trump decided to be Israel's partner in this.
But I don't think Israel would have attacked regardless.
If the U.S. opposed it, there's no way Israel would have gotten involved.
Aaron Mate, thank you, my dear friend.
Great, great analysis, as always.
We look forward to seeing you again soon.
We may need you sooner than next week.
Who knows where all this is going to go?
At your service, Judge.
Thank you.
Thank you, my dear friend.
Coming up later today at 1245 this afternoon, Scott Ritter at 2 o'clock, Matthew Ho at 3 o'clock, Colonel Karen Klutkowski.