Judging Freedom - Aaron Maté: Are US/Iran Talks Going Anywhere?

Episode Date: May 22, 2025

Aaron Maté: Are US/Iran Talks Going Anywhere?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

you Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, May 22nd, 2025. Aaron Mate joins us now. Aaron, thank you for accommodating my schedule. I want to talk to you at some length on a, I'm not sure if it's a piece you wrote or posted, but information you've put out there with your opinions on the talks in Iran or the talks with Iran. But before we get to that, what is your take on the telephone call and the aftermath between presidents Trump and Putin on Monday? Well, it looks like Trump is finally making a decision when it comes to the Ukraine proxy war and he's walking away. He basically said that if the two sides can't come to a deal, then that's their problem

and they'll have to work it out for themselves and only they can work it out. And what he's saying is he's done with the war. And I've said all along that Trump is not going to go back to Congress and ask for a reauthorization of tens of billions of dollars more for the proxy war. So I do think he's leaving Ukraine and the rest of NATO that are still behind this proxy war on their own. Now there is one caveat though, because what if Europe can come up with the money to buy the US weaponry that Ukraine needs? I don't think that's likely because it's a lot of money that

Europe doesn't really have right now, but what if they can? Will Trump be willing to sell that weaponry to NATO? I think he actually would because he loves to see deals. He loves to make deals. He loves to make money for the military industrial complex. So with that possibility open that Trump might still continue to arm Ukraine as long as other people pay for it. Aside from that, in terms of providing the US funding for the war, the US leadership for the war that was the Biden policy, I do see Trump walking away from that. Does anybody take seriously his protestations? He said it as recently as Tuesday when he was answering questions about the phone call on Monday. It's not my war. It's not my war. It's not my war It is his war. It's his war because he's the president of the United States and he's funding it

It's his war because during his first term he substantially and materially armed Ukraine That was the basis for was inappropriate, but it was still the basis for the impeachment You know, I'm a little bit more generous to him on this question than you are, Judge. Yes, he was largely responsible for, yes, he carries responsibility for this war. His first term, as you said, he carried out policies that prolonged this war. He did nothing to support the Minsk Accords. He tore up the INF Treaty, which was a major source of tension between Russia and the US. It helped plunge arms control to historic lows. The INF Treaty, which was a major source of tension between Russia and the US. It helped plunge arms control to historic lows.

The INF Treaty had limited and reduced the weapon stockpiles that the US and Russia can use to threaten each other. And Trump withdrew from that at the behest of John Bolton. That's one of the issues that Russia wanted to address in its draft treaty that it submitted to the US NATO before it invaded Ukraine in February 2022. But on the other hand, after Russia invaded, it was the Joe Biden administration that sabotaged the peace talks that Russia and Ukraine entered into, reaching the outline of a peace deal in Istanbul in April 2022.

It was Joe Biden that prolonged the war. It was Joe Biden who made the decision that he wanted to use Ukraine to bleed Russia. So in terms of that part of the war, that is not Trump's war. And I do see Trump now doing what Joe Biden refused to do, which is talk to Russia and talk about ending this war. And so I do give him credit there. It's better than what Joe Biden was doing. It's better than what Kamala Harris was offering as well. He seems to, in furtherance to your argument,

he seems to have dropped the demand of ceasefire first negotiations later. A demand that we know is contrary to Russian history and contrary to the way the Russians do business. So perhaps he came to that conclusion either from something Witkoff said to him or from his two hour conversation with President Putin because he and Rubio seemed to have dropped that,

Secretary of State Rubio seemed to have dropped that absurd demand. I think what happened there was, you know, Zelensky and Macron and Keir Starmer were so desperate for something, something that could make them look tough. They got together, they came up with this, you know, ultimatum that Russia, unless it agrees to a 30-day ceasefire, it's going to face new sanctions. And they kind of ambushed Trump, and Trump probably without much thought said, yeah, sure, okay, why not? Like, let's do that. But then Trump talked to Putin, and he realized from Putin that Putin doesn't care, that Putin doesn't

care about these ultimatums. And Russia will continue to impose its demands on Ukraine, including Ukrainian neutrality, by force. And so I think Trump made a comparison between what the US and their allies are capable of in terms of, can they stop Russia from achieving its goals, and what Russia is determined to do. You know, as many guests have talked about with you over the past week, in Istanbul, the Russians

relayed the message that, listen, like we fought these wars before. We're prepared to make this go on for a very long time. So I think Russia took stock, I think Trump took stock of that and realized that the only way he could really enforce the ultimatums would be to double down on military support for Ukraine, which he doesn't want to do. That's why he caved pretty quickly and basically abandoned the ultimatum that he had signed onto. Under Trump, we remain a co-belligerent. We're still picking targets for them. We're still giving them military equipment and we're still giving them intel.

Yeah, that's true. But that's going to run out eventually. The weaponry that's true. But that's gonna run out eventually. The weaponry, the money for the weaponry will run out eventually. And what happens- I wish we knew how much money is left. I have a little smirk on my face because nobody knows because the Defense Department doesn't reveal these numbers,

doesn't keep accurate numbers, hasn't passed an audit in eight years. Well, we know that Joe Biden, you know, every six months or so had to go back to Congress and ask for more money. And it's true that the last time, last time he got money was a bit over a year ago. That was $60 billion. It's a lot of money. At the same time, Ukraine's losing a lot of people. This, you know, they're blowing through a lot of ammunition very, very quickly.

So I would give very quickly. I would give it months. I would give it months. They must be concentrating on drones because they can't produce the manpower to win on the ground. No, they certainly can't. And that's why the images you continue to see in terms of how they're generating manpower is kidnapping people off the streets. But isn't it laughable that a co-villager could also be a mediator? How can we mediate between Ukraine and Russia when we're funding Ukraine? Well given that it's US weaponry and intelligence that sustains the war, the US can use this

leverage over Ukraine to bring the war to an end. And also simply, if it walks away, then the war has to come to an end unless Ukraine and Europe can find another way to come up with the money and the weaponry, which I don't think they will. So, you know, the US role in brokering the talks to me is it's a material now because Trump even said he doesn't want to broker anymore. He said that, you know, he made a comment about how only the two sides only they know all the details, they can work it out for themselves. What he's saying is we're not going to be involved. Do you think that Witkoff is not going to be negotiating with President Putin anymore over this? He may be negotiating with him over other things, but over the war? over other things but over the war? Well, Wicuff certainly has his hands full. He's handling the Iran portfolio. He's handling the Gaza Israel portfolio. So for the sake of maybe getting a deal, it would be good if someone else took it over because how can

he possibly achieve anything in all these different tracks if he's handling all of them at the same time? So I don't know, but certainly if I were Witkoff, I would pick one lane and stick to it because it's just impossible to handle. You have no doubt seen the piece written by our friend Max Blumenthal, who as a result of his many interviews in Iran came to the conclusion that the Iranian negotiators

characterized Witkoff as uninformed and distracted by his other assignment, which is what we're talking about, Ukraine and Russia. Yeah. So Max Blumenthal at the gray zone was just in Iran and spoke to some diplomats there, and paints a very sobering picture of the state of the talks. The way Trump and Witkoff were speaking initially, it sounded like a deal was at hand. And it sounds from the Iranians officials that Max spoke to that there was some optimism initially, because there were signs of real openness from the Trump team that a deal could be reached. But then all of a sudden, Wicoff started putting out demands that were indistinguishable from all the Israel lobby groups, all the far-right pundits who support the Israeli agenda. And that was no enrichment whatsoever, which is for Iran as a non-starter, because they assert the right to enrich uranium under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And they're very proud of their civilian program that they've developed over the years

to be able to enrich. So Wyckoff immediately is endorsing Israeli demands that for, and claiming this is a red line that no enrichment whatsoever. Whereas for Iran, that's their own red line that they reserve the right to enrich as long as it's for peaceful purposes. And that was the premise of the Iran nuclear deal

that Trump killed in his first term, which is that Iran had the right to enrich at a peaceful level, whatever the percentage was, 3.6% or something. Now Trump and Witkoff are blowing that up. Having Trump and Witkoff, I'll use the sports analogy, move the goalposts. I mean, Witkoff led the Iranians to believe that that 3.2 number you're talking about, a sufficient amount of uranium enrichment for civilian energy and medical purposes, was an offer that Witkoff made, which delighted the Iranians and caused Witkoff to say, before the other Zionists,

goddamn, were close to a deal. Now with the no enrichment, there is no conceivable way the Iranians could agree with that. Don't you agree? Yeah, that's their red line as they've laid out. And in fact, Witkoff publicly said that we'd be okay with them having some enrichment. He said that on Fox News. And that immediately triggered a meltdown from the usual neocon pundit class.

And the next day, Wicoff relented. It just shows how whenever the Israel lobby, the pro-war lobby has a little bit of a freakout, and we see this in the Ukraine war too, especially when it comes to progressive Democrats advocating for diplomacy, everyone just falls in line. No one seems willing to defy them. And now for Iran too, they also have to watch what's happening between Witkoff and Hamas negotiators over the Gaza genocide because it's come out recently, drop site news reported that Hamas claims that Witkoff told

them that if they release the Israeli-American soldier Aidan Alexander claims that Wyckoff told them that if they release the Israeli American soldier Adon Alexander, Wyckoff told them that Trump will call for an end to the blockade and to push Israel into immediate ceasefire negotiations. Well, Wyckoff didn't do that. Adon Alexander was freed by Hamas without getting anything in writing from Wyckoff. And has Wyckoff done anything about ending the siege of Gaza? No. So Iran must be looking at this and saying that, if the Hamas account is true,

that Wyckoff and Trump played Hamas and Iran has to be therefore all the more wary about making a deal with them. And Netanyahu was esteemed, even furious, at Aidan Alexander's release because the Israelis weren't involved. Well now I have to wonder, Judge, if that was just for show. It's true that Netanyahu intervened to block the first effort to release Aidan Alexander back in March where Adam Bowler, the U.S. hostage envoy, was speaking to Hamas. He reported great progress. He reported that not only can we get a deal to free Aidan Alexander, but Hamas is talking about a long-term truce, and we're talking about getting to the roots of the

conflict. And then he said, in response to criticism from Israel, listen, we're not an agent of Israel. Well, that got him shut up for a while. He was basically taking off the airwaves and sort of put on the back burner. Now finally you had another deal made this month and Alexander was released and yes, Netanyahu apparently was upset, but now I wonder given that Wyckoff and Trump delivered nothing to the people of Gaza as a result of it, Alexander getting free, I wonder if the talk about

Netanyahu being upset about this recent round of negotiations between Hamas and the U.S. was actually a smoke screen, that he knew that Trump and Wyckoff would go back on their word to Hamas and therefore it was fine with seeing Netanyahu free. Do you think that the reports in the Western press about the rift between Trump and Netanyahu is a deception or is accurate? I think it's a deception. I see no evidence of it whatsoever. Trump was recently asked by Fox News, you know, is there any, are you mad at Netanyahu? And Trump said, no, he's in a very tough position. And October 7th is one of the worst things in history. And

so therefore he had to do something. So that was Trump endorsing what Nanya was currently doing, which is not only a mass murder campaign, massacres every single day. It's hard to keep track of all the hospitals now that are still being attacked. There's another hospital in Gaza attacked today as we're recording this. There were others last week, including the European hospital. And so Trump is giving his full support to that. And Trump is even doing what Joe Biden wouldn't do. There wasn't an 80-day starvation siege of Gaza under Biden. There has been under Trump. And a trickle of aid trucks have been allowed in in response to international criticism, which Netanyahu says is required because he said that, you know, some Republican senators were saying that, look, we can't have images of mass starvation coming out of Gaza. Not we can't have mass starvation. He said we can't have images of mass starvation because it interferes with our ability to support you to do the job. And what is the job? It's ethnic cleansing in Gaza. So Netanyahu, at the behest of the U.S., some complaints from some lawmakers, not really Trump even, is letting in a trickle of humanitarian aid

just to reduce the images of mass starvation so he can continue the goal of destroying Gaza and ethnic cleansing it. So Tom Fletcher, who's the undersecretary general of the UN for humanitarian and relief assignments, uh assignments told the security council that 14 000 um palestinian babies will die of starvation by the end of this week now as you and i are speaking it's thursday afternoon here in the u.s ray mcgovern reported this morning that since fletcher made that comment five five not 500 not, five trucks of aid were permitted into Gaza. Three filled with food, two filled with shrouds.

You can't make this up. Now that is whatever word there is below trickle, it would be that. You got 2 million people starving. What can three trucks do for them? There's a Palestinian analyst named Mohammed Shahada and he said that basically what Israel has allowed in so far amounts to about less than 1% of what people need

and about four rice crackers per person. That's basically the aid that Israel has allowed in amid a starvation crisis. In terms of the 14,000 number, it's my understanding that maybe Fletcher meant to say that 14,000 are at risk of starvation and not maybe within 48 hours. So he might've gotten that wrong. There's some confusion around that.

But whether it's 14,000 at risk of starvation within 48 hours or 14,000 at risk of starvation over a longer period, it doesn't really matter. These policies, this starvation siege is putting thousands of babies at risk, but not even babies too. It's children, it's adults, it's everybody. And there are, you know, it's 2 million civilians trapped in this death camp being starved. And yes, Israel has been given full impunity by the Trump White House to carry it out. Yes, Israel has been given full impunity by the Trump White House to carry it out.

Here's a clip promoting the starvation of babies by this former member of the Knesset, a former member of Netanyahu's party. This is really a repellent. Here's the English translation. Chris, cut number 10. Every child in Gaza is the enemy. We are at war with the Ghazan entity, the Ghazan terror entity, which we ourselves established in Gaza,

in Oslo, and in the disengagement. The disengagement that Prime Minister Netanyahu voted in favor of, that is the enemy now. Every such child to whom you are now giving milk in another 15 years will rape your daughters and slaughter your children. We need to conquer Gaza and settle it and not a single Ghazan child should remain there. Let's stop telling ourselves this deception just to score points in this game between pro-BB and anti-BB. This

isn't about left or right it's about winning this war and it's about justice. When will we learn? When will we learn? Is this attitude, which obviously is shared by Smotrich, Gevier and Netanyahu, shared by a significant proportion of the Israeli public? Yes. Yes. I believe last plus saw the majority of Israelis don't support letting aid into Gaza. Certainly a very, very large number. And you know, some people now are increasingly speaking out, an Israeli opposition leader recently said some words of condemnation, but this has been going

on for more than a year and a half. And Israeli leaders from the start made clear what their intention was, denying aid, denying food, and ethnic cleansing. And the amount of Israelis that have risen up to oppose this, not on the issue of the hostages, but simply on the issue of mass murder of Palestinians is a very, very small percentage. Here's...

That represents the real sickness in that society. Here's Netanyahu just about an hour and a half ago. He's referring to, when he says they, he's referring to the events of October 7th. This is him. They beheaded men. They raped women. They burned babies alive. Free Palestine is just today's version of Heil Hitler. They don't want a Palestinian state. They want to destroy the Jewish state. I could never understand how this simple truth evades the leaders of France, Britain, Canada, and others. He's deluded himself.

Yeah, well, he's repeating the atrocity propaganda that he's put out there along with all Israeli apologists to wage their atrocities, which unlike the atrocities he claims happened on October 7th, are real. So, for example, he says, you know, Palestine militants burned babies on October 7th. No, they didn't. There was a baby killed on October 7th, but it wasn't from being burned. Whereas Netanyahu was burning babies alive inside Gaza and beheading them with US bombs. The allegation of rape, you know, we've talked about this before. There's no evidence still yet to this day for even a single case of rape on October 7th. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. I mean, I'm not God, so I can't see everything, but in terms of the available evidence, there is none.

It only comes from discredited witnesses whose stories don't add up or have been debunked. Meanwhile, no forensic or physical evidence. The purpose of this atrocity propaganda from Netanyahu is to continue justifying all the atrocities incurring every day before our eyes, attacking hospitals, attacking people in their tents, in what's left of their homes, and committing hundreds of killings every single day.

It's impossible to keep track of all of them. And by the way, on this issue of Hamas trying to wipe out Israel, as I've talked about a lot, Hamas is more accommodating on the issue of the two-state solution than Israel is. Hamas accepted a Palestinian state in just 22% of their stolen homeland, the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem.

Hamas accepted that. Israel's never accepted a Palestinian state within those borders because Israel wants the right to steal as much Palestinian land as it wants. And that's not just Netanyahu, that's even labor governments that were, you know, supposedly generous in their peace offers to Palestinians. So the problem here is in Israeli society, Israeli across the spectrum, it doesn't accept the fundamental rights of Palestinians, the self-determ the fundamental rights of Palestinians, the self-determination in their own homeland, in the homeland that Israel stole from them.

And that's the fundamental problem with this conflict, which Netanyahu wants to now deepen by entering a new phase of ethnic cleansing. So I'm making Gaza permanently unlivable for everybody there and expelling as many people as he can. Aaron, thank you very much. I know it's late in the day where you are and I deeply appreciate the time you've given us.

I hope we can get together when you're back in New York and I hope you'll join us again next week. Thank you, my dear friend. Thank you, Judge. Of course. Coming up at three o'clock this afternoon, Professor John Mearsheimer and at four o'clock, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. You