Ambassador Chas Freeman critiques the U.S. war with Iran, arguing America lost due to lacking clear objectives and a termination plan while suffering covered-up military damage. He condemns the illegal Strait of Hormuz blockade, which violates international law and hurts Gulf Arab revenues, contrasting it with Iran's peace proposal demanding a general non-attack guarantee first. Freeman asserts Secretary Marco Rubio wrongly rejected this offer, ignoring that Israel unprovokedly initiated the conflict to remove Iran as a regional constraint beyond the 2015 JCPOA nuclear limits. With Russia supporting Iranian sovereignty and potential boycotts looming, Freeman warns of an impending "game of chicken" where U.S. carriers face massive missile salvos, suggesting the war's continuation stems from Israeli sabotage of peace deals rather than genuine security needs. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Unclear Objectives and Nuclear Tests00:15:14
Undeclared wars are commonplace.
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, April 28th, 2026.
Ambassador Chaz Freeman joins us now.
Ambassador, a pleasure, my dear friend.
Thank you for accommodating our schedule.
How did the U.S. lose this war with Iran?
I mean, on paper, there are no matches militarily, but what did the U.S. fail to do or not do properly?
Well, when you start a war, you need to have objectives that are clearly defined, that are feasible.
You need to have the resources necessary to implement a strategy.
You need a strategy.
And part of that strategy is a war termination strategy.
That is, how do you get out of the war that you've started?
We did none of those things.
We've had objectives that were unclear.
Constantly changing.
And it's now come out that we've suffered a great deal more military damage than we were prepared to admit.
I think for operational reasons, the Pentagon has covered up the tremendous damage to our bases in the Gulf region.
Israel's done the same thing.
It's suffered terribly in this war.
The Iranians have suffered terribly.
But the wars don't end until you break the will of the enemy, and Iran's will is far from broken.
What we have now is a very strange tango with Iran in which the Iranians have put forward recently a three-phase proposal for ending the war.
Donald Trump seems intent on pursuing all the objectives we haven't achieved regime change, disarmament of Iran's missile forces.
Breaking the Iranian economy and the nuclear issue, and not prepared to talk about a general peace, which is what Iran wants and has demanded.
So we've lost the war because we basically have not known what we were doing, and we haven't accomplished the rather fantastic objectives we set for ourselves.
Is one of the reasons that we or the U.S. Was so ill prepared, so devoid of achievable, militarily achievable goals, the fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his colleagues rushed the president into this.
Well, I think you could put it that way.
You know, Netanyahu's been trying for 40 years, he says, to find a president he could manipulate into doing what Donald Trump just did.
He evidently. was very persuasive.
He sat in the situation room, the sit room at the White House.
I don't think any foreign leader's ever been in there before.
You know, it was Boris Johnson who said that when he received Netanyahu at his office, he later found that the bathroom had been bugged, presumably by Netanyahu or one of his minions.
So this is a very strange relationship, and we do what Netanyahu says.
So, I don't know that there's anything particularly surprising about that.
Here's Secretary Rubio on Sunday commenting on the offer that he had seen from the Iranians.
Now, he has, for the most part, and we can speculate why, unless you have some understanding better than speculation, as to why he's totally out of this.
He's the Secretary of State of the United States and he's the President's National Security Advisor.
He's engaged, as far as I know, as far as we know, in no negotiations with the Iranians.
But before we talk about.
What he's been involved with here's what he said on Sunday Chris cut number 10 on Saturday the president canceled the talks in Islamabad Pakistan Keeping special envoys Kushner and Whitkoff here in the United States He said just 10 minutes later the Iranians made a new offer on paper and it was better if what they mean by opening the straits is yes, the straits are opened as long as you coordinate with Iran get our permission or we'll blow you up and you pay us.
That's not opening the straits.
Those are international waterways They cannot normalize, nor can we tolerate them trying to normalize a system in which the Iranians decide who gets to use an international waterway and how much you have to pay them to use it.
He skips over quite a bit there.
Yes, he does skip over quite a bit.
Please fill in the gaps, Ambassador.
Well, as I understand it, the Iranian proposal has three phases.
Phase one is a general peace.
That is a guarantee that Israel and the United States will not again attack Iran.
If that is achieved, then Iran is prepared to sit down with Oman at its side to discuss how the Strait of Hormuz should be opened and under what rules.
And if that is achieved, Iran is then prepared to discuss its nuclear program.
This is a complete mismatch.
The president, Marco Rubio, skipped over the requirement for a general peace, not admitting that the United States and Israel started this war. with no provocation from Iran, and basically asking Iran to provide all of the conflicting, shifting goals that we've announced, you know, somehow present those on a platter to us,
and then we'd be prepared to, having accepted Iran's capitulation, we'd be prepared to talk about the future.
This is a total non-starter, and it's just not going to go anywhere.
I mean, I think Secretary Rubio is quite correct, there is a lot at stake in how the strait Of Hormuz is managed, but he has provided.
It's all very well to wring your hands and lament how Iran is handling this, but if you don't have a strategy for changing how Iran is handling it, you're just wasting words and and uh uh, you know, you're part of a of something that has become a um, a test of endurance on the two sides.
And here I have to say that the United States is blockading the strait of Hormuz And in doing that, we are basically blockading the entire world's energy supply.
We have no support anywhere internationally for this, and in fact, returning everyone against us.
So this is now a test.
We calculate, apparently, that Iran is going to run out of willpower to continue this struggle before we do.
But I don't know.
I think we're going to see gas at the pump going up above the level it's already at quite considerably.
And every country in the world is scrambling around for gas and oil supplies that they can't find.
So the international demand and the domestic demand that the president end this war is going to mount, not go down.
I suppose in Iran the same thing will happen.
But I think there's every reason to believe that the Iranians are capable of enduring more suffering than we are.
How absurd is it for the Secretary of State to chastise the.
Iranian regulation of the Strait of Hormuz, while the Navy of the United States is trying to block it ineffectively, I might ask.
Yeah.
Miles away because they're worried about Iranian speedboats and drones and other projectiles, but nevertheless attempting to block it to the point of seizing ships and their contents and their crew.
Well, this has become a pattern.
We invoke international law, in this case, the right of free passage through straits.
When it's to our advantage.
Otherwise, we not only ignore international law, we willfully break it.
This blockade is entirely illegal for many reasons.
And it is not appreciated by anyone, including the Gulf Arabs on the other side of the Persian Gulf, who have been deprived of revenue by this.
And as I said, we've engaged in acts of piracy on the high seas.
And we don't seem to be at all embarrassed by that.
So it is, it's very strange.
It is hypocritical, it is double talk, and it has no credibility abroad at all.
What happens if the United States enters into a peace agreement with Iran and Israel doesn't?
Well, I don't know that's politically possible given our basic subservience to Israel and its objectives.
But.
That would have to be a peace agreement with Iran, would have to involve a reduction in the threat from Israel to Iran.
And I suppose the only way that could be achieved under those circumstances would be by cutting off American military support for Israel, something which the minions of Israel on Capitol Hill would never permit.
So it's a hypothetical, I think.
But basically, we have leverage on Israel, and we won't use it.
They evidently have leverage on the president.
And have no hesitation in using that.
The Iranians have apparently communicated in the past 48 hours.
I don't even know if Secretary Rubio is aware of this, although I acquire it from public sources.
He obviously has better sources than public, theoretically, that there will be no negotiations over the enrichment of uranium for civilian purposes.
That's been the consistent position of Iran.
Yes.
That is a humanitarian position, I would submit, because of the need for civilian use of uranium for medical purposes.
Well, of course, that is a factor.
Nuclear power is a factor also.
But this is grounded in the Nonproliferation Treaty.
Under that treaty, which the United States sponsored and signed and ratified, in which Iran is a party to, Iran has the right of enrichment.
How much enrichment is something that could be discussed.
And in fact, we had a deal with the Irans called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, in 2015, by which Iran agreed to limit the amount of enrichment it did and to turn over anything that it had enriched beyond that limit to the Russian Federation, which it did.
So all of this stuff about the nuclear issue in Iran is essentially a pretext.
in support of the Israeli objective of removing Iran as a constraint on Israeli dominance of West Asia.
The Greater Israel Project, the domination of the neighboring countries, the expulsion of the Palestinians if they're not massacred.
These are the objectives.
Iran is an obstacle to all that, and Israel wants it removed.
This has got very little to do with the nuclear issue.
How significant is it, in your view, Ambassador, that when Iranian Foreign Minister Arachi was in Moscow yesterday, he met not only with his counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, but with President Putin himself?
No, I think Putin sees an opportunity here.
Iran has the sympathy and support of the entire world in this context.
It's said, for example, that one of the main beneficiaries of this war is China, because its moral and legal and political standing internationally have risen by contrast with that of the United States, which we have fallen in our reputation.
Why wouldn't Vladimir Putin, who is an adversary, take advantage of this to boost his own image?
And he, in fact, commended Arakchi, I think.
If I'm correct, for the bravery with which Iran was defending the principle of national sovereignty, which is a basic principle of international law that the United States now disregards.
The principle of international law going back to the Treaty of Westphalia before the United States existed, but incorporated in major treaties, not the least of which is the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions.
False Flags and Ceasefire Failures00:04:32
Well, exactly.
Well established, not even something that can actually be.
What can Russia do for Iran beyond what it's already done?
I mean, was this performative that the whole world saw President Putin and Foreign Minister Arachi, or was it substantive?
No, I think it had elements of substance.
The details, of course, are not available to us, but the Russians and the Chinese have conducted normal trade with Iran throughout this period.
There are no restrictions, as far as I can tell, on the export from either China or Russia.
To Iran of dual use items, items that have a military as well as a civilian application.
And so Russia can support Iran at the UN as it has.
It can support Iran materially as it has.
It can possibly take advantage of the wave of revulsion internationally against the American and Israeli attack on Iran.
to organize some sort of general boycott of the United States.
So, I think it's Aragchi's visit to Moscow from a point of view of Iranian strategy makes a great deal of sense.
If the United States were to get close to an agreement, let's say President Trump just continues to extend and extend and extend the ceasefire and mouths whatever he mouths, very few people take him seriously because he is so inconsistent, would the Israelis?
Wreck or undermine an agreement?
Would they go so far as a false flag and make it look like it was the Iranians?
Would the Israelis attack an American ship and make it look like the Iranians had done so?
That's all possible.
There's quite a record there.
When the state of Israel was first established, that establishment was accompanied by a false flag attack on the American embassy in Cairo.
And Israel has indeed attacked synagogues in an effort to agitate the world's Jews and convince them they should move to Israel.
False flag is a normal Israeli operation.
Would Israel undermine an agreement?
There's no agreement we've ever made that Israel hasn't undermined.
Look at what's happening in Lebanon.
There's supposed to be a ceasefire there.
How many people are being killed every day?
Villages are being razed to the ground.
solar panels are being stolen.
There is apparently widespread looting of private property by the IDF, and nobody's doing anything about it.
There's no ceasefire.
Israel is supposed to be in a ceasefire.
It's not.
What about Gaza?
Has Israel kept any of the promises it made there?
It has not withdrawn from Gaza.
It says, well, Hamas hasn't disarmed.
But the condition for disarmament of Hamas is Israeli withdrawal.
So I think the question answers itself.
Israel is a rogue state, does not feel bound either by international law or by agreements with the United States.
It does not respect American interests.
It pursues its own vision of its own interests, and if that hurts the United States, so be it.
There are examples.
For example, the attack on the USS Liberty, an American vessel clearly so identified by the Israeli pilots who were instructed to attack it.
It was made to look like an attack by someone else, an unknown group of aircraft, and so forth.
The examples are too numerous to.
Right, right, right.
In the case of the USS Liberty, as I recall, not personal knowledge, but recall reading, the Israeli jets had no insignia on them.
You couldn't tell what country they came from looking at them.
Real Intent Behind Missiles00:03:13
So obviously, there was intent.
Switching gears slightly, in your view, does the attempted attack on President Trump on Saturday night have any geopolitical significance?
Not particularly.
I think that was a real attack.
I know there are a lot of conspiracy theories suggesting that this was somehow a replay of Butler or that.
But no, I think it was real.
If it has geopolitical implications, they simply underscore the lawlessness of gun use in the United States, the availability of weapons that are not available in other countries to carry out assassinations, and they raise questions about the stability of the United States politically.
You know, it's very weird that when the president has just been subjected to a possible assassination attempt, His reaction is, well, we better build the ballroom.
I mean, really.
So, anyway, it's an illustration of domestic distress and turmoil, which we're all aware of.
Right, right.
Ambassador, thank you very much.
Thanks, especially for the very astute analysis of Israeli international lawlessness and of the.
What shall I say?
Friendship, and it's not a defense treaty, but it's an agreement to aid between Iran and Russia.
Where do you think we'll be in six months with the war in Iran?
Well, I very definitely fear that we're going to get into a tit for tat pattern.
I think it's significant that the three American aircraft carriers that have been sent to the region are all now in position just beyond the range of Iranian cruise missiles.
Apparently the cruise missiles have a 300-kilometer, 200-mile range.
We're at 315, 310, 320 kilometers away.
They look like they're positioned for an attack.
I don't think that attack will occur while King Charles is in the United States.
He's leaving on Thursday, I believe.
Iran has said that it is prepared, it expects an attack, and that it will send what it says is the largest salvo of missiles on Israel and the Gulf states.
Aiding the United States that history has ever seen.
So we could be going right back into where we were.
And it's absolutely pointless because it's not going to change anybody's position.
And I repeat, we are now in a game of chicken, perhaps, but we're in a game of matching stamina and endurance.
King Charles Saves the Day00:00:39
Who can last the longest?
I'm not sure what the answer is, but.
If we think we're going to get through this without pain, we're gravely mistaken.
Ambassador Freeman, thank you very much.
All the best to you, my friend.
We'll look forward to seeing you next week.
See you then.
Thank you.
And coming up later today, if you're watching us live in 36 minutes at 9 o'clock this morning, Professor John Mearsheimer at 1 this afternoon, Max Blumenthal at 2 this afternoon, Matt Ho at 3 this afternoon, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.