Judging Freedom - Aaron Maté : A False Flag on Syrian Chemical Weapons

Episode Date: May 13, 2026

Aaron Maté : A False Flag on Syrian Chemical WeaponsSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Undeclared wars are commonplace. Pragically, 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? 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 Wednesday, May 13, 2026. Aaron Nate will be with us in just a minute on a false flag in the allegations against Syria in using chemical weapons. But first this. If the last few years have taught us anything, it's that the systems we rely on can fail. And when they do, we're on our own. That's why I want to tell you about my Patriot Supply, America's original Patriot Preparedness,

company. When you get their flagship solar backup generator, the ultra-powerful Grid Doctor 3300, you'll also get over $1,000 worth of survival essentials absolutely free. Four weeks worth of emergency food, water filtration, and more, all absolutely free. But with everything going on right now, there's no telling how long it'll be available. So go to Preparewiththejudge.com right now. to see what you can get for free. Don't wait until it's too late. Get your complete preparedness set up today.

Go to preparewiththejudge.com. That's preparewiththejudge.com. Darren, Monta, welcome here. Of course, my friend. I have a lot of questions to ask you your views on the article by Robert Kagan and the Atlantic and the article by Nicholas Christoph in the New York Times.

But let's get right to, chemical weapons because no one has done more research on discovering and discovered the truth about this than you have. What is, give us a little bit of your background with respect to what you have already reported. And what are you now reporting about a false flag? Well, first of all, thank you, Judge, for having me and for asking about this story, which has gone grossly undercovered by our corporate media. So I appreciate you shining a light on it. The top headline that I have for you in my new reporting is that the world's top chemical weapons watchdog, the OPCW, Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, after years and

years and years of a prolonged cover-up scandal, they've now finally admitted to concealing a critical finding that undermined allegations of a Syrian government chemical attack in Duma in April 2018. And the allegation that Syria did commit this chemical attack is what prompted the first Trump administration to launch. air strikes on Syria. And now years later, the top chemical weapons watchdog, the OPCW, has admitted that they covered up a critical finding. And this comes out of a cover-up scandal that's been unfolding at the OPCW for a very long time. So just to back up, April 2018, images are released of dozens of dead bodies in Duma, Syria. And there's gas canisters and the insurgents

who control Duma at the time fighting to topple the Assad government. They claim this was a chemical attack. And before the OPCW can get on the ground to investigate, the Trump administration says, yes, this was a chemical attack, and we're going to bomb Syria. And they do that along with the UK and France. And if you recall at the time, whenever Trump bombed Syria, he did it at least twice, the media praised him after attacking him so much. Whenever he bombed Syria, you know, there's a famous clip of Brian Williams of NBC News saying what a beautiful sighted is to see U.S. aircraft carriers bombing Syria, and even quoted a Leonard Cohen song falsely about what a great site it was to see Syria being bombed by the U.S.

So the OPCW, after the bombing goes in, they do an investigation. And about a year later in March 2019, they come out with a report aligning with the Trump administration saying that, you know, evidence does point to a chemical attack in Syria. And the inference of the report is that this was by the government, the weapon used was chlorine. But then we get a series of leaks from inside the organization. And it shows that the actual investigators who went to Syria to do the investigation for the OPCW reached a different conclusion.

And the evidence that they uncovered points to a false flag by insurgents. And this is containing all these leaked documents, including an original report that was buried. And critically, for our purposes here, one of the most critical pieces of evidence was that the OBCW went to Germany to consult with a group of Germany. military toxicologists who said immediately that there's no way this was a chlorine gas attack because that was the alleged weapon used according to Trump administration that this was a chlorine

gas attack and the German military toxicologist looked at the victim's symptoms and they reported circumstances of death and so there's no way that this was chlorine the symptoms including foaming at the mouth looked like it came from nerve agents but the problem is the OPCW when they went to the scene there was no traces of nerve agents at the scene so there was no evidence to of a nerve agent attack and no evidence of a chlorine gas attack, which pointed then to this being a false flag, this incident being staged. And we don't know how all those people died. That's essentially what the German military toxicologists concluded. The OPCW suppressed that finding, erased any trace of it. It was mentioned in the initial report that was written by the original team.

That got suppressed. And when the OPCW came out with its public report on the matter, not only did they erase the German military toxicologist conclusions, they even erased the fact that the German military toxicologists were consulted. So in a detailed mission timeline of the mission, you have all these steps being listed, like the team did this, the team met with these people, the team met with these experts, but the Germans were totally erased.

And the reason is obvious is because if the Germans' findings were included, it would have undermined the official narrative. This was a chlorine gas attack. So long story short, one of the dissenting inspectors named Brendan Wheeland, who challenged the suppression of the German military toxicologists, he was vilified by the OPCW in public because they couldn't respond to his actual claim,

so they accused him of a confidentiality breach, which he didn't do. And so he took the OPCW recently to a tribunal, which adjudicates disputes at organizations like the OPCW. And in the course of the case that was adjudicator, indicated the OPCW in trying to make a fake case against Dr. Willen, they inadvertently admitted that they suppressed the German military toxicologist finding. And that's what I've just reported that in their submissions, trying to make the case against Willen, they tried to impute him for

raising the issue of the suppressed German military toxicologists and saying that he shouldn't have raised the issue because, as they said, it was highly protected information that was not included publicly. So they admitted that this highly protected finding that undermined the official narrative was buried. And that's what just happened in his case, which by the way, he also won. And the OPCW was forced to pay him damages for falsely impugning him for breaches. So it's a victory for him and a victory for the truth, but way after the fact, because the damage has been done. So who actually killed these people, who administered some sort of a chemical, that resulted in their horrific deaths.

And how many people did Trump kill with his bombings? Well, I don't know how these people died. I just know something horrific happened because you had dozens of dead bodies. And it's been, if you compare the photos, what happened was the people at the scene who were releasing the photos, they moved the bodies around

to like stage some emotional scenes. So bodies are, all of a sudden in one room and then there were another room and they were two corpses were placed next to each other and made to look as if they were engaged in like a final embrace before they died. And this was done to trigger outrage to justify a military attack by the U.S. Because recall the reason Trump bombed Syria is because Obama, when he was in office, had what he called the so-called red line,

which basically said that we're not going to bomb Syria unless there's a chemical attack. So even if you knew nothing about all the circumstances of all these cases and all the details of the leaked documents, just logically, the notion that Syria under Assad would go ahead and do the one thing that they knows would invite U.S. military strikes, it never made any sense. There's an article in Harper's magazine by Charles Glass, a veteran correspondent, who quoted a former U.S. diplomat who told him the red line was an open invitation to a false flag. Because if you're insurgents fighting to topple Assad and you need U.S. military strikes to help you out. And you know the one thing that will get the U.S. involved is a chemical attack. Then you have the incentive to stage one and have a false flag. So weren't the insurgents to a large extent supported and paid for by MI6 and CIA? Could America's fingerprints be on this in some respect?

Certainly the insurgency, which was led by Al-Qaeda. And there were a lot of different groups. but certainly the insurgency was led by al-Qaeda. It absolutely was funded by the CIA and their allies. The militia that controlled Duma at the time of the stage incident was called Jashal Islam. A lot of their funding came from Saudi Arabia. But the overall Dirty War was coordinated by the CIA. And so you had various actors stepping in to pay different groups. And certainly, MI6's fingerprints are all over this too,

because a group that was critical to putting out the images from Duma and even was caught staging a hospital scene where they came in and hosed people down and claimed that they were all victims of a chemical attack when they weren't, was the white helmets. And the white helmets was directly funded by the UK and the U.S.

And in fact, the white helmets were created by former British intelligence operatives. A Western security company called ARC literally founded the Syrian white helmets and they were used to push a lot of interventionist propaganda. I wonder if the, not clean-shaven, but Brooks Brothers-clad president of Syria knows anything about this?

Well, yeah, I mean, certainly it was his insurgency that was behind these false flags. And there's, in all the major cases, there are evidence, there's evidence of a false flag. You know, all the major ones that prompted either U.S. military strikes under Trump or under Obama almost led to them. So, for example, in the first major incident, Guta, 2013, this is when Obama was about to bomb Syria, but then he pulled back. The public story was that he pulled back because he didn't have a congressional authorization, which is true. He went to Congress to ask for it, but Congress didn't want to be involved, so he didn't do it. But what actually happened was James Clapper went to him, and this came out later, as always happens. The critical disclosures always come after the fact, and this was no exception.

James Clapper, his Director of National Intelligence, came to Obama and said, the evidence that Assad did this is not a slam dunk. And that was a deliberate reference to the Iraq WMD hoax when Torres Chenet said that the case of Saddam's WMDs is a slam dunk. So that was a warning to Obama that this was another Iraq WMDs. And there's so many other. I remember that phrase. Either you reported it or recounted it,

but I do recall the play on words from George Tenet. The Robert Kagan article in the Atlantic, which Max Blumenthal says, is the imperial elite lamenting a setback for their goals, nevertheless is harshly critical of Trump and his military planners, about as harsh but using sweeter language as McGregor and Ritter have even been. It is because people like Kagan, who's a diehard neocon, they're frustrated that Trump has screwed this up. They've been dreaming about regime changing Iran for decades. And Trump screwed it up by not bothering to make a case to the American people, changing their rationales. And they're frustrated about it. This has been a huge strategic defeat for the U.S.

The New York Times just reported the other day about leaked U.S. intelligence assessments saying that, Iran maintains substantial missile capabilities despite the Trump administration's claims, especially around the Strait of Hormuz, which gives them the leverage that they can use to prevent Trump from relaunching this war. So this is a disaster if you're a neocon who's been dreaming about regime change in Tehran for nearly 50 years. Trump screwed it up. So Robert Kagan is expressing the frustration that comes from that.

And there was a congressional hearing the other day where I saw Lindsey Graham expressing similar frustrations at Defense Secretary Pete Hegeseth because contrary to the administration's claims that they've wiped out Iran's capabilities and so forth, leaked U.S. intelligence assessments are saying the opposite. And so all the neocons who have been dreaming about this forever are really upset. And but the, you know, to quote Trump, as Trump told Dolensky in the Oval Office, he doesn't have the cards because Ron's using the leverage it has over the state of her moves and it can threaten the U.S. as Gulf allies and has shown that it's willing to do that. and in fact is threatened even war damage that they've already received.

So Trump's in a bind. He can't resume the war because he can't win it. He can't have regime change. That's been made clear. But he also isn't capable of making a peace deal with Iran because of the entrenched hostility in his circle towards Iran's sovereignty. And, you know, minimally serious diplomacy with Iran would engage, would require recognizing Iran's minimal rights, including its right to enrich uranium.

Trump can't do that either. So he's stuck in people like Robert Kagan. are expressing the frustration that results. You mentioned Senator Graham expressing frustration we have, but it's a little humorous. He's so frustrated. It's laughable, but it's very interesting to watch him trying to cut off his buddy Pete Hegseth.

Chris? Pakistan. Are you aware of reports that Pakistan are allowing their bases to be used to park Iranian aircraft? General King? Sir, I've seen one report on that. Well, is it accurate? Sir, I think based on the variety of classification matters that I've seen.

Let me just say, do you agree if it is accurate, that is sort of inconsistent with it being a peace mediator? Sir, I wouldn't want to comment on that based on the ongoing negotiations. Secretary-Saintiff. Secretary-Hexpert. If the mediator is allowing reconnaissance aircraft to Iran to be part in Pakistani air bases, do you think that's consistent with being a fair mediator? Again, I wouldn't want to get in the middle of these negotiations. I want maximum advocacy for our people.

I want to get in the middle of these negotiations. I don't trust Pakistan as far as I can throw them. If they actually do have Iranian aircraft parked in Pakistan bases to protect, to protect Iranian military assets, that tells me we should be looking maybe for somebody else to mediate. No wonder this damn thing is going nowhere. How proper and senatorial, I don't trust Pakistanis as far as I can throw them. This is ridiculous. Which also speaks to the contempt the U.S. has even for its allies, because the current Pakistani government is very compliant with the U.S.

because, in part because the U.S. helped overthrow the previous leader of Pakistan and Ron Khan. Why? Because he actually was playing a neutral role in the proxy war in Ukraine. He was trying to mediate a resolution, much as Pakistan is trying to mediate a resolution now between the U.S. and Iran. Pakistan was neutral when it came to the proxy war in Ukraine. So therefore, according to leaked diplomatic cables, this was reported on by the intercept a few years ago. They marked Imran Khan for regime change. This is the same Imran Khan that is a world champion cricket player who's now serving a life sentence in a Pakistani prison for trumped up charges for which he never even had a trial. Exactly. And so Lindsey Graham has such contempt for Pakistan that even when they've, you know, the government results from a U.S. back coup when if he can now find an excuse to blow up these talks and blame the mediator of Pakistan, he will do that because these talks are a threat to his

agenda, which is regime change. And this accusation against Pakistan for hosting Iranian aircraft, whether it's true or not, it's an act of projection because what was the U.S. just caught doing, enabling an Israeli military base inside of Iraq that was covertly built to support Israeli forces and their attack on Iran. And this is inside a U.S. ally, Iraq. And when Iraqi forces discovered this and tried to do something about it, Israel fired on them. And the U.S. backed them up on that. So that's how the U.S. treats their allies.

If you're trying to mediate a peace deal to end a war, then you have to be undermined, according to Lindsey Graham. And if you're a U.S. ally like Iraq, then, yeah, we're going to build a secret military, we're going to help build a secret Israeli military base inside your sovereign territory. And when your own forces discover it and try to do something about it, we will back Israel as they fire on you. So it's a real sign of the contempt the U.S. has not only for its allies, but also for diplomacy.

Switching gears to Lebanon, is the Lebanon government about to negotiate with the Israelis in Washington this week and again sell out the Lebanon people to whatever Israel wants? There are these talks going on, and the Lebanese government has been very openly hostile toward Hezbollah and to the point where they're even willing to meet with Israeli officials, which is in violation of the country's own laws, where you're not supposed to engage with an enemy state like Israel.

But this government is incredibly influenced by the U.S. There's a massive U.S. embassy, so-called embassy in Beirut, one of the biggest in the world. And the U.S. plays a major role there, and the people in power are currently essentially listening to Washington. Lebanon is a very complicated society. It's very divided. You do have a substantial number of people who don't like Hezbollah

and don't want to be constantly fighting Israel. But then you also have a huge amount of people who do support Hezbollah because Hezbollah has resisted decades of Israeli aggression and expelled Israeli occupation forces after decades of occupation. And the answer to all of this would simply be for Israel to behave like a normal state, stop occupying Palestinians, stop denying them their freedom, stop trying to invade other countries and steal their land as it's done in Lebanon, as it's done in Syria, now also attacking Iran.

But because the U.S. won't reign Israel in, every other country is in danger. And the answer of the Lebanese government right now is going to try to reach some deal with Israel. But look, Israel won't accept anything until Hezbollah is destroyed. And their agenda is to get Lebanon to do it for them, to have essentially a civil war in Lebanon, as has happened before. Because Israel has been finding it can't do it itself. Hasbalah's military power, contrary to many predictions, has remained strong. They're hitting Israeli forces now with drones that have been very effective. So now the Israeli U.S. strategies try to enlist Lebanon, the government there, in a civil war against Hezbollah,

and essentially return to the days of internal strife where Lebanese were fighting one another. That's the Israeli hope because Israel can't do it itself. In light of the research done by Nicholas Christoff of the New York Times in a piece that has infuriated the Israeli foreign ministry and produced nonsensical responses, is it fair to conclude that Israeli leadership of the cabinet level and Netanyahu's office are aware of the horrors that go on, visited on Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails? They're absolutely aware. And I think given the preponderance of cases in which this has happened that Nicholas Christoph documents and others have documented this as well, he isn't the first to break this story, but certainly to put in the New York Times at that level of attention. That is something new. I think it's government policy. If something happens enough times, it's part of a pattern.

It's systematic. And from the testimonies that Christoph assembled and other sources, it's very clear that this is what Israeli forces are trained to do. And certainly, it's tolerated at a very high level. I mean, you had in Israel rallies in support of soldiers who were credibly accused of rape. And they're treated as heroes. They go on national television and brag about it. So if normal Israelis who go out and rally in support of the rapists, you know about it and certainly top Israeli officials do. And I mean, there's so many questions about the story.

First of all, why is this published on the op-ed page of the New York Times and not in the news section? The new section in New York Times years ago published a fraud called Creams Without Words, which accused Hamas of systemic rape on October 7th, even though if you look at all the evidence they tried to put forward, it crumbles one by one, including the fact that the cover image for the story on the front page of the New York Times, because this was a new story, was of an Israeli family. supposedly like the relatives of an Israeli rape victim. But the problem is the only, the family themselves said there's no way she was raped

because we spoke to her right before she died on October 7th. So the, the image for the New York Times of an Israeli rape victim wasn't even a rape victim, which speaks to the fraudulence of that Hamas rape story. And the fact that they put that in the new section front page years ago, and now years later we get this in the op-ed section, it speaks to how the New York Times has done a terrible job. But, and Nick Christoph has done something important, even though his story also propagates the false Hamas rape narrative. He has spoken to Palestinians.

Unlike the October 7th stories, he has direct testimony from actual victims. The October 7th stories didn't, which is another very big difference. But yes, this absolutely is government policy inside of Israel. Aaron, thank you very much, my dear friend. Great analysis. And congratulations on your unique, should be front page on the New York. New York Times and should have been at the time front page in the New York Times research and reporting on the chemical weapon controversy in Syria. Thank you, my dear friend.

Thank you, Judge. It's another case where the damage is done and the truth comes out way later. Regime change was achieved in Syria. The allegation that aside used chemical weapons was integral to that narrative. It's what justified the regime change war. It's what justified sanctions that decimated Syria. And it was used, by the way, to help pave the way for a war of aggression on Iran because before you attack Iran, you have to take out their allies. And taking out Syria was a key part of that progress. Thank you, my man. All the best. Good to see you. Thank you, Judge. Sure. Coming up, if you're watching us live in 34 minutes on the Robert Kagan and Nicholas Christoph articles. In the Kagan article, Phil and I, Phil Geraldine and I are going to go through

the article line by line, not every line, but the more important ones. So at three o'clock, Phil Jarrell. broadly, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.