March 5, 2026 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
25:53
Prof. Glenn Diesen : Trump’s War and Europe’s Strategic Anxiety
Judge Andrew Napolitano and Professor Glenn Diesen dissect the U.S.-led conflict with Iran, which Diesen frames as a preemptive war driven by Israeli interests and potentially orchestrated by the Trump administration. They analyze fraudulent pre-strike negotiations, the destabilizing use of Kurdish proxies threatening Turkey, and the erosion of trust following broken agreements like the JCPOA. The discussion highlights Europe's suppression of dissent through sanctions on Swiss Colonel Jacques Beau and warns that proxy warfare could draw China and Russia in, while Russian officials like Medvedev and Lavrov express skepticism toward U.S. overtures. Ultimately, this escalation signals a dangerous shift where diplomatic failures threaten to ignite World War III. [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 Thursday, March 5th, 2026.
My dear friend, Professor Glenn Deason, joins us now.
Somebody asked me recently if that phrase in the intro, what if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now, is just a figure of speech or if I meant it.
Well, I meant it when I said it.
It's a statement I made about 10 years ago, and I mean it today.
From your perspective in Europe, what is your understanding of the military purposes of the Israeli war on Iran, conducted largely by the United States?
Well, I think most would see this as a war for Israel's interests.
That is, the U.S. got pulled into this war because of Israel.
Indeed, there's been some admission to this, that is, the justification for the U.S. to go to war, according to Marco Rubio, was that, well, Israel was planning to attack Iran, and once Iran was attacked, it would likely attack the U.S.
So therefore, the U.S. had to go in first.
They call this preemptive.
That's not preemptive, but nonetheless, he was then called out.
So Iran, Israel, essentially pulled us into this war, and then he had to explain, no, well, they didn't.
So there's a problem with the narrative.
But back to your question, I think that the coverage here is a bit mixed.
On one hand, nobody wants to oppose the war because then one could be painted as taking Iran's side and one is not supposed to do this.
But there are some who suggest that this could be reckless and out of control.
I think in the first two days, the enthusiasm was greater, assuming that, especially when Khamenei was killed, assumption that that would magically turn Iran into a liberal democracy.
And now they see the war going on.
And yes, some are becoming a bit more skeptical, I think.
Is the media in Europe as mainstream media, not alternative like your podcast and mine and our friends and colleagues?
But is the mainstream media in Europe as one-sided in support of this war as is the mainstream media here in the US?
Well, usually, yeah, they do march in lockstep and very, very supportive.
That is, the media tends to repeat the same thing.
But with this war, there's a little bit more dissent given, not much, but given that, well, the European governments haven't gotten involved yet.
If they would have gotten more involved, then you would have seen a bit different media coverage because the media tends to, again, follow and repeat the government talking points, which since you brought up your pre-recorded introduction, you also say that what if being right is dangerous if the government is wrong?
well, this is also a problem in Europe.
That is, nobody wants, well, I think the media has become very narrative-driven.
So if the truth and reality clash with the narratives, it's better to stick with government-approved narratives if you want to avoid punishment.
So, for example, in terms of the Ukraine war, in this country, every single member of parliament is for sending weapons.
Every major media outlet do not call for having any diplomacy, but only to send more weapons.
So there's a full conformity.
And if there is any dissent, you will see government and government-financed NGOs immediately come to, well, I guess snuff out any dissent.
So it's not the same Europe as it was only a few years ago.
Coming up after you at 9 o'clock Eastern Time, you know of this man, you may even know him personally, Colonel Jacques Beau, the Swiss retired military intelligence officer who has been sanctioned by the European Union because of his opinions.
So because of his publicly expressed opinion and the very opinion for which they sanctioned him, he was quoting somebody else.
Because of his publicly expressed opinions against the war in Ukraine, excuse me, against by arguing that Ukraine will lose, he can't use his bank accounts, he can't use his credit cards, and he can't travel.
And he can't get due process.
How does that go over with the average European that a human being could be so radically punished with no due process and not even an allegation of a crime, just an allegation of being an outlier politically?
Well, it's very problematic.
Again, this Jacques Bov, actually I interviewed him many times on my program and he comes from Swiss intelligence as a colonel.
He worked for NATO as well.
And he does analysis.
And as any other analyst, you don't hate your enemies.
You try to assess their interests.
And his conclusion was essentially wrong.
Because according to the narrative, he concluded that this war was largely provoked, that the US and UK sabotaged the peace negotiations and that the objective has been a long war so we can fight with Ukrainians.
And this is, you know, he cites only Western sources pretty much.
And they sanctioned him.
The main reason they gave was because they said he argued that Ukrainians had invited the war.
In other words, they were to blame.
What he really did was he quoted the advisor of Zelensky, Alexey Stovich.
How can you be punished for quoting somebody else?
I don't get it.
No, well, this is the thing.
They argued by quoting this.
And this was in 2019 when Adrostovich said, our ticket to join NATO will be a big war with Russia, because Russia knows that if we try to expand NATO further and provoke, they will invade.
He said three years before the war.
And then NATO will help us defeat Russia and will destroy Russia and we will be able to join NATO.
This will be our ticket to enter NATO.
He quoted the advisor of Zelensky and now they sanctioned him because they said he's repeating pro-Russian talking points, which is, and you know, whether or not if this is a crime to commit the, you know, pro-Russian talking points.
Well, what, you know, the colonel never actually committed a crime.
He was never even, he never got it in court.
Just to wake up one day and the EU has put sanctions on him.
He no longer can leave Brussels.
He's not allowed to travel.
They closed down all his bank accounts.
And, you know, I spoke to some leading people in the EU parliament and they said they're not even allowed to talk to him because it would be a crime.
So, yeah, this is what's happening in Europe these days.
You do not dissent without having an escape plan, essentially.
Well, were the, back to Iran, were the US, and I thank you for that analysis, as usual, spot on and factually based.
Were the U.S.-Iran negotiations essentially a fraud intended now twice, once in June and once in February, to lull the Iranians into a false sense of security?
Well, it appears so, that the war plans, they were in place.
So, and as you said correctly, this has happened twice now.
And it's also an indication based on what they were, because if you remember back in June, what we're told by the American side was they were close to a deal and making great progress, and then suddenly they launched a surprise attack on Iran.
Well, you heard the same this time.
The negotiators in Oman were saying they were close to a deal.
The Iranians had made some very significant concessions.
You had the CNN reporting only a few hours before the US and Israel launched the surprise attack that they could be hours away from a deal.
They were very close.
But I don't think the Israelis especially never wanted a deal.
Because if you have any deal, then it would entail the U.S. also loosening up on the sanctions and giving Iran some more breathing space.
Well, if your objective is the destruction of Iran, then why would you make any deal?
So I just don't, if you wanted a deal on the nuclear issues, well, the Iranians had already accepted this.
They approved this in the past.
It was the U.S. that unilaterally walked away from the JCPOA nuclear deal and tried to link it into other issues such as ballistic missiles, regional alliances, and essentially demanding then the capitulation of Iran, which is something that they would only make the more exposed.
So again, yet again, seemingly at the end of negotiations, which have been successful, and then comes the surprise attack.
Well, did Netanyahu, in your opinion, force Trump's hand?
I mean, this is one of the misleading, I think, statements that Rubio made.
Well, we had no choice.
The Israelis were going to attack anyway.
My own view is that the attack was agreed to in Mar-a-Lago around December 29th or December 30th, which is two months ago.
And that the BB is going to attack anyway is an excuse not based on truth.
Well, it is hard to say what's just narratives and what is reality.
But I do it's a there's a good reason why one should be critical of the idea that Israel attacked without discussing it with the United States or without a prior agreement.
I mean, the United States was sending a lot of weapons and especially in the days before the war.
This is why many people, including myself, right before the war, were arguing that it's likely that this war will happen simply because the US was sending so much new weaponry right before the attack.
So the idea that this would have simply have happened because Israeli made the decision.
I think it's more now the US scrambling for legality, because not just international law, I don't think that something that the Trump administration cared too much about, but domestically within the United States, some might question if Trump is thrown under the bus if this war fails, how was this illegal?
So they use the terms such as, oh, it was an immediate threat.
These words aren't coincidental.
This is to make it, if there's an immediate threat, then there's a right for a preemptive strike.
But usually, so anyways, I think this is why they went with this narrative there to show that the threat was imminent.
But then you have to explain, well, you're the one who were building up all these military capabilities on Iranian borders and Iran can't strike you.
So I think the only answer they had was, well, the Israelis were going to do it.
It wasn't up to us.
We were just, we wanted to protect them.
You even saw a comment in the political, I think it was a week or two before the attack.
I think it was a week, which argued based on some comments from some American, I think it was military or political leaders, who had made the point.
It would be preferential if Israel attacked first, because then the United States can look as if it's only coming to the aid of Israel instead of being the aggressor.
So a lot of this is about narrative.
So you're probably correct in your assessments.
So Dmitry Medvedev, the former president of Russia and now the chair or the vice chair of their National Security Council, just posted this on X. NATO's nuts.
Very American phrase.
First, the U.S. kills Iran's leader and starts a war in the Middle East.
Next, NATO idiots led by Trump's servile Sonny Ruta.
That's the Secretary General of NATO, NATO, Mull invoking Article 5.
How about nominating POTUS, Trump, for the Nobel Peace Prize for starting a major war?
Orwell was right.
War is peace.
This is very, very well written by somebody who obviously understands the English language and Western culture.
Add to that, add to that, before you comment, a very interesting statement made earlier today by Foreign Minister Lavrov, Chris number 13.
We want to return Gaza to Palestinians.
We want to rebuild Gaza and 1 billion US dollars Vladimir Putin declared to provide out of frozen assets.
We have notified Americans about our intention and this money, 1 billion US dollars will be sent to rebuild housing, civilian infrastructure, and this money will be used to address all the issues that will allow Palestinians to return to Gaza.
So is this giving you some indication of President Putin's thinking when former President Medvedev makes a statement like I just read and Foreign Minister Lavrov makes a statement like I just made.
Kurdish Fighters as Proxy Troops00:09:59
The $1 billion he's referring to is the $1 billion donation in quotes to the Board of Peace in quotes, but it's coming from frozen assets in American banks.
So it's not a check coming from the Russian Treasury.
It's money already here.
I don't know which bank, probably Chase or the Federal Reserve of New York, about which President Putin is willing to give up the ghost.
What's your take on this?
Lavrov Medvedev.
Well, I think the Russians about the Board of Peace, they have a bit mixed feelings on the issue because on one hand, they see this as a direct challenge to the United Nations, which they don't care for, because they would like this to be the primary body of dictating what international law is in organizing the world order.
But that being said, they also would like to have improved relations with the United States.
So if this is a pathway, they don't want to reject it either.
But they don't want to be as subservient as the Europeans either.
So they wanted to set some conditions to make this acceptable.
So one would be to take it out of the frozen money.
And the second is how that billion would be spent.
Because if it can be spent on rebuilding Palestine, it's one thing to rebuild Gaza.
On the other hand, if it's going to be used for the US to bomb Iran, for example.
I mean, this is what the peace funds in the EU is used for, to send weapons.
So, you know, this is war is peace.
And again, I think this the whole rhetoric as well about Trump the peacemaker, keep in mind that when Trump listed the wars he had ended, you know, they included Gaza, which the U.S. financed the genocide and then take credit for ending it.
And also he ended the war with Iran, but it was the United States launched a surprise attack on Iran.
So it's very interesting that these things are sold as peace.
But it's not just Trump.
You probably saw the comments by Speaker Mike Johnson.
First, he was making the point that, well, this isn't a war.
Why are we calling it a war?
It was just an operation.
We were having a limited operation and then the Iranians declared war on us.
So, in other words, it wasn't the Americans, it was, it was Iran who started this.
So the narratives are just uh yeah, all over the place.
So I think yeah, the this will have, I think, profound consequences.
I don't think uh, the Russians will take the negotiations by the United States as serious anymore after this.
Well, it's just what I was going to ask you.
Will they even?
I guess they will, because they, they are diplomatically uh proper, they're gentlemen, gentle, ladies in the area of uh, diplomacy.
But who would take the United States at its word?
Uh, after these two subterfuges that uh Trump's two real estate agents, Steve Witkoff and and Jared Kushner pulled off on Iran, will the negotiations with Russia and Ukraine even resume now after this?
Well, I think, as you said, that the Russians will still talk.
Indeed, if you're able to improve US-Russian bilateral relations, then that's a win.
So you know, it's not as if they're too busy to talk to the United States, but the parallels are becoming quite profound.
For example, with Iran, the United States had an agreement JCPOA and it walked away.
Then it was negotiating in June and then did a surprise attack, negotiating now again and launching another surprise attack, and the Russians feel that they had the same experience coming from, coming from Ukraine, because keep in mind that while Yanukovych was in power, in 2014 the, the Western countries, agreed to a unity government.
They broke this.
Then we had the Minsk peace agreement the, the Europeans and the Americans used this an opportunity to instead build a big Ukrainian army, and then, of course, in 2022, they were close to a deal in Istanbul, and then the US and UK came in and torpedoed it.
So so, after a while now, they're becoming a bit skeptical about the, the interest in diplomatic solutions.
And, if you want more comparisons, you had only with weeks in between, when there was this surprise attack on Iran, the first time there were use of drones domestically, which has been smuggled in to attack targets within Iran, and around the same time, you also had smuggled drones into Russia, which were then used to attack the nuclear retaliatory capabilities, that is, these nuclear bombers, which is just an incredible escalation.
So they're seeing a lot of parallels and they're drawing conclusions here.
And there's many who thinks that they're just being strung along.
So that America is stringing them along.
So they would like.
So I think that they're now betting on victory on the battlefield.
I wonder if World War III is starting.
I wonder if World War III, Professor Deezen, is starting right under our noses.
Here's what the Huffington Post and Yahoo News have just reported.
Donald Trump's administration, and you can't make this up, Donald Trump's administration has asked Ukraine, Ukraine, for help to counter Iranian drones, despite being very reluctant to help Kyiv over the Russian invasion.
The U.S. is looking to intercept Iranian attacks on its military bases in the Middle East after Trump and Israel launched joint strikes on Tehran on a weekend, a move which has sparked a regional war.
In a post on ex-Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said there have been requests from the U.S., Europeans, and other partners in the Middle East for advice from Kyiv on how to deal with these attacks.
He said they are seeking our expertise.
We are open.
If their representatives come, we will provide the expertise.
World War III in the making.
Well, it could be.
This is spreading very fast.
I lost count of how many countries have been attacked now.
Only today we saw a drone being struck into Azerbaijan, allegedly from Iran, but I haven't had that confirmed.
And you have now the French sending an aircraft carrier down.
I'm sure that the Russians wouldn't mind giving some intelligence and even some weapons to the Iranians after four years of the French backing a proxy war, killing tens of thousands of Russians.
So there's many ways of being pulled in.
But the most likely one, I think, is actually what's being reported now, that is that Kurdish fighters are being used for the United States to have ground troops to use as a proxy.
That is Iranian Kurds as well, which would mean trying to trigger a civil war.
Now, we know that China and Russia won't let, they don't want to let Iran fall because of this American attack, but they also don't want to get into a direct shooting war with the United States.
But a way they could be pulled in is to go after America's proxies.
This is what happened in October of 2015 when the Russians went into Syria.
So by activating these Kurdish forces to fight for the United States, it's also a way of possibly pulling in Russia, in even China.
I mean, it seems unlikely now, but if the situation would demand it, if they think Iran could fall, then definitely this will escalate.
And what about Turkey?
They're not going to allow the Kurds to achieve some autonomous region?
No.
And I understand why people are sympathetic to Kurdish groups who want their own state.
Indeed, they're the largest ethnic groups in the world without their own state.
I think they're like 30 or 40 million people.
But they're spread into Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey.
But I think we have to also be honest.
That is, you know, the well-being of the Kurds and their ambition for their own homeland is not objective here for the United States.
They're looking for proxies.
So the grievances can then be exploited to use them as a proxy force.
And if you're Turkey, you would be very worried because in the past, the Kurds have always been activated.
They were used in Iraq before they were betrayed.
They were used in Syria before they were betrayed.
Now they're going to be used in Iran.
Yet Turkey has the largest Kurdish population, which they consider to be an existential threat, given that they're so large and they could then, if they pursue their own independence, break up Turkey as a country.
And at the same time, you see more hostile rhetoric towards Turkey coming from Israel.
And now the Americans are going to start to arm Kurdish nationalists seeking secession.
I mean, this is a recipe for disaster.
And Turkey is not a tiny, insignificant country.
This is a huge, a massive military in NATO.
And if you have to ask yourself, if you're advising Turkey, you would possibly start to suggest perhaps you should align a bit closer with the Iranian position because this proxy war will essentially undermine the security of Turkey as well.
Right.
Professor Deason, thank you very much.
A great, great conversation with profound insight and analysis and deeply appreciated.
Who knows when we'll chat again?
I look forward to seeing you next week, maybe sooner if this thing really gets out of hand and involves the Europeans.
You are our eyes and ears there.
All the best to you, my dear friend.
It's a great pleasure, as always, Judge.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Coming up later today, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, Colonel Jacques Beau, he, the Swiss, retired Swiss intelligence officer, sanctioned by the EU at nine o'clock.
Harrison's Break From War00:00:34
At one o'clock this afternoon, Harrison Berger.
Harrison, I'm going to take a little bit of a break from the war.
Harrison is the American journalist writing in Brazil who monitors, among other things, the destruction of civil liberties in the West.
Did you know that the very spying authorities that were used on Donald Trump, which he condemned and tried to get rid of in his first term, he now wants to be made permanent?
Harrison will discuss that with us.
At two o'clock, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, and at three o'clock, to put a bow on this awful, ugly box.