Judging Freedom - Aaron Maté: Biden and Permanent War.

Episode Date: December 4, 2024

Aaron Maté: Biden and Permanent War.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, December 4th, 2024. Aaron Maté joins us now. Aaron, a pleasure as always, my dear friend. I want to talk to you about Syria, Joe Biden, and the permanent war. But first, a couple of other questions, because I know you've written about it recently. Is the agreement between Israel and Hezbollah a true ceasefire? It's a true ceasefire only if you believe that a ceasefire only can apply to one party, and that party is supposed to be Hezbollah in the eyes of Israel and the U.S. The U.S. and Israel obviously reached an agreement where Israel retains the right to break the ceasefire at will, and that's why it continues to carry out strikes inside Lebanon, because it refuses to abide by any agreement that constrains its monopoly on force. And that's at the heart of the problem here. Israel insists on having a monopoly on violence in the region. That's why

there's a resistance axis to it from states that don't accept Israel's monopoly on violence and its self-professed right to occupy Palestinians and steal their land. And so that's why Israel, consistent with its fundamental doctrine, that it has the right to maintain the monopoly on violence and instill fear in anybody who resists it. That's why it continues to carry out these strikes inside Lebanon. And is there a side agreement between Israel and the United States that modifies, interprets, expands, whatever, the actual agreement that the people from Hezbollah signed? As far as I know, it's not officially confirmed, but there have been reports that there is a side agreement, and I would bet strongly that there is. And even if it's not even written down, you just know that given that Biden has offered unconditional support to Israel for more than a year as it commits mass murder

against a defenseless death camp, that there is an understanding that basically between Netanyahu and Biden, I'm sure the message was conveyed that, you know, give Biden a win here, have this ceasefire, which he can announce publicly and take credit for it, but go ahead and do what you want. That was what Amos Hochstein, Biden's Israeli-born envoy, was trying to insist on before. He was trying to get Hezbollah to basically accept conditions under which Israel could continue to carry out operations inside Lebanon if it wanted to. And when Hezbollah didn't formally agree to that, I think the Biden administration just decided that we'll let Israel go ahead and do that anyway and claim that we brokered a ceasefire. You have written a very intriguing theory that the ICC indictment of Netanyahu may actually have played a role

in the crafting of this agreement with Hezbollah. Did I correctly interpret what you wrote? Yes. And people like Ali Abunimah, a friend of mine who's the editor of the Electronic Intifada, he noted that France played a very key role in brokering the agreement, the so-called ceasefire agreement inside Lebanon. And what did France immediately do after the ceasefire was announced? It said that it's not going to enforce the ICC indictment against Netanyahu if he travels on its soil. So that could be a case where, as an incentive to Israel for agreeing to France's role and for accepting the ceasefire, France then offers the incentive to Israel that it won't enforce the ICC warrant, therefore breaking international law. Because if you're a party to the Rome Statute, you have to enforce international

law. But of course, as we've seen in Gaza, international law is out the window if it's in the service of Israeli-U.S. hegemony. And the French government collapsed today. Now, I don't know if this is the premier that made this agreement or if it was President Macron. I'm not that familiar with how the French power is divided between the two of them or how long lasting this agreement will be. But I suppose that Bibi and Sarah can visit Paris without worrying about him ending up in a jail cell. Yeah, and the question for them is whether they'll bring their dirty laundry, as they're known to do when they come to the U.S. They bring suitcases.

This is true. They bring suitcases full of their dirty laundry to get the U.S. government to wash it for them. Why do they do that? Why don't they just clean their own laundry? Who knows with these people. And maybe there's some sort of symbolic thing there where the Israelis are so entitled that Netanyahu just wants to remind everyone when he comes to Washington that he can do whatever he wants, including getting Washington to handle his dirty laundry.

Chris, can you put up the photo of the lunch at Mar-a-Lago? That, of course, is the president-elect. His favorite Israeli acolyte, Senator Graham, Mrs. Netanyahu, and their son, Yair, I think I'm pronouncing it correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Netanyahu. Did she bring dirty laundry with her to Mar-a-Lago? Trump would have a fit. Well, if not literally, then certainly figuratively because they're trying to enlist Trump in their project to have continued carnage in the Middle East, to take over the parts of

Gaza that Israel wants and to expand their occupied, either occupation in the West Bank and the illegal settlements or colonies in the occupied West Bank. Do you expect any difference whatsoever in the treatment of Israel between the administration of Joe Biden and the coming administration of Donald Trump? I think Mary Madelson is going to get what she paid for, more than $100 million for Trump's acquiescence to this militarist Israeli agenda. That's what Trump is on board with so far. He's recently quoted saying he's going to make Israel great again. So making it clear that his agenda is not about making America great again. It's about making Israel great again. And in that conception, that means

letting Israel steal more Palestinian land and kill more Palestinians. So unfortunately, no, despite Trump exploiting the fact that Democrats were enabling a genocide. He went to Michigan, met with Muslim leaders, you know, put out flyers that, you know, that were a tacit criticism of the Biden administration for enabling genocide. He's now turning around and selling out the people who he promised to bring peace to, and he's fully on board with the Israeli agenda. Is there a coincidence between the public announcement of the agreement between Hezbollah and Israel and the commencement of wider hostilities in Syria? of Idlib. That's the only so-called rebel-controlled province inside Syria. And it's controlled by a group named HTS, which is just a name change from its original, which is Al-Qaeda. It's founded by the founding leader of the Al-Qaeda franchise in Syria. His name is Al-Jalani. Al-Jalani also is the former deputy to the founding caliph of ISIS, Baghdadi. And so al-Jalani went to Syria, changed their name to Nusra, and then they went

through a few other name changes. Finally, this is their latest name. They're called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which is HTS. And they took fully advantage of the fact that their main enemies, which is Syria, Hezbollah, and their ally Iran, were tired and worn down after years of, first of all, Israeli strikes on Syria, and also Hezbollah's fight against Israel and Lebanon. And al-Qaeda took full advantage of that and launched this operation as soon as the ceasefire was brokered. Why didn't they do that before? I think the answer there is that it would have looked just too, it would be too obvious if the Al-Qaeda group in Syria was also attacking the Syrian government and its allies, Hezbollah, while also Hezbollah was fighting Israel. So I think

they did the next best thing. As soon as the agreement was reached, Hezbollah fighters are exhausted. They're trying to repair their own country, which has been devastated by Israeli strikes. And that's when Nusra, backed by Turkey, it appears, took full advantage. And there's a whole long story here. I don't know. I don't think the U.S. was directly involved in this operation by al-Nusra, but certainly there's a long record of U.S. actions in Syria that made this operation possible. Chris, do we have the clip of then-General Austin testifying before Senator Ayyad? This is crazy if you haven't seen this. This is 10 years ago when he's a four-star general. He's the commander of CENTCOM, and he has just revealed under oath and publicly that the government has spent $500 million, half a billion dollars training Syrian fighters to fight against President Assad.

And the question is, how many fighters? Did you see this clip? No. Where do you see this? The question is, how many fighters did you train? Watch this. It's a small number. And the ones that are in the fight is, we're talking four or five. As I see it right now, this four or five U.S. trained fighters, let's not kid ourselves,

that's a joke. They spent half a billion dollars to train four or five fighters. How much have they spent on a thousand troops in Syria, as Phil Giraldi says, stealing oil? Judge, the sad thing is I wish the scandal only was just what Austin said, that we've spent 500 million dollars and have only been able to train four or five rebel fighters. I wish that was the only story. Unfortunately, the real story is exponentially worse. The US via the CIA spent billions of dollars, about $1 out of every $15 in the CIA's budget, arming an insurgency that it knew was dominated by Al Qaeda. And this was laid out very early on by Jake Sullivan, who's currently the person in charge of national security for the U.S., in an email to Hillary Clinton back in February 2012, so just months after the unrest in Syria broke out,

Sullivan wrote to Clinton, quote, Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria. And what Sullivan knew very early on, along with the rest of his colleagues, was that the insurgency that the U.S. was arming via the CIA was dominated by Al Qaeda. Everybody knew that. And I've spoken to a former CIA analyst who was, you know, his beat was Syria during this time, David McCloskey. And he said, we knew that the insurgency was dominated by Al Qaeda, but he said there was no even debate about it. There was no debate. He says it was problematic, but there was no debate because that's another case where hegemony and the need

to overthrow governments that we deem to be against our interests because they're not under our control, it trumped national security. The fact that the U.S. was willing to arm an insurgency dominated by the same group that attacked the U.S. 10 years earlier on 9-11. And that was the policy. And this insurgency, you know, this was under Obama. And it continued for many, many years until finally Trump shut it down when he took office. And Trump said, it turns out a lot of our weapons were going to al-Qaeda. That's exactly what happened. I don't think the U.S. was directly arming al-Qaeda itself,

but the U.S. was directly arming insurgents that fought alongside al-Qaeda. And without that support, without arming this al-Qaeda-dominated insurgency, al-Qaeda would not have been able to capture its Idlib stronghold. And so after taking Idlib, the province of northwestern Syria in the spring of 2015, Al-Qaeda has had this place to rule. They've expelled Christians. They've massacred Druze. And it's from Idlib that the iteration of Al-Qaeda, now known as HTS, it's from there that they launched this offensive that now has reached the city of Aleppo. So I don't think the U.S. was directly involved in this current operation, but without the U.S. arming this al-Qaeda-dominated insurgency,

without the U.S. also keeping its troops in Syria and stealing Syria's oil and wheat, and without the U.S. also imposing sanctions that have impoverished Syria and made it impossible to rebuild from this decade-long war, and without hundreds of Israeli strikes on Syria and their allies, like Hezbollah, this offensive by al-Qaeda would not have been possible. And what are 1,000 American troops doing there? Are they literally stealing oil or protecting Conoco while it steals? There's two great bipartisan sources for what the U.S. troops are doing. The first is Donald Trump. After Trump ordered U.S. troops out of Syria, but he was undermined by his own generals, rather than fight them,

he just fell in line. And he said, OK, we're there to take the oil. We're there to take the oil. So he admitted what the actual real goal in Syria was. The official pretext is that we're there to fight ISIS. But as I've shown in previous reporting, based on Pentagon reports, there's barely any fighting at all by the U.S. against ISIS. What they're've shown in previous reporting, based on Pentagon reports, there's barely any fighting at all by the U.S. against ISIS. What they're doing, as Trump said, is take the oil. Another person who admitted this is Dana Struhl, who until recently was a senior official in the Pentagon under Biden. And a few years ago, during the Trump administration, when she was on something called the Syria Study Group, which is a congressional adjacent group looking at Syria. She said that we are in Syria because we own the territory that holds the valuable oil

and wheat, and that gives us leverage to shape Syria's future. So what she was admitting is that the U.S. was stealing Syria's oil and wheat because she's also said that much of Syria is rubble and the Assad is desperate for reconstruction. So holding on to Syria's oil and wheat while Syrians are starving and living in poverty and trying to rebuild from a war, that gives us leverage to shape Syria's future. So it all comes down to the U.S.'s self-declared right to choose Syria's leadership, to flood it with weapons. And then when the insurgency dominated by al-Qaeda that we support is defeated, then we're going to at least punish the government and hold leverage over it to help shape its future. Are American forces involved in any hostilities against President Assad? Well, Max Blumenthal pointed this out. There has been at least one U.S. military bombing so far near Deir al-Zour, I believe.

And we can make the case, if you look at that, that that is yet another example of the U.S. acting as the de facto air force of al-Qaeda. If they're bombing Syrian government forces and their allies, then yes. I haven't verified this instance myself, but if it is true that actually there was recently a US military bombing of Syrian government allied forces, then yeah, that's a case where the US is taking the side of the Al-Qaeda-led insurgents. Over the weekend? But to be clear, this was not in Aleppo where the insurgents took over. This was in a different region, but still, it's part of the same dynamic.

Why does the United States want Assad out? Is it because Netanyahu wants him out? Netanyahu certainly wants him out. And yes, basically Syria is the last Arab state that is part of the axis of resistance that has insisted on Palestine's right to self-defense and lets Hezbollah obtain weaponry through its territory from Iran. And it's been a long time, going back many years, obsession of the U.S. and Israel to destroy Syria and install a more pliant leader,

even though Assad at times has tried to make deals because he wants back the land that Israel stole in 1967, the Golan Heights. But because he's still part of the Axis of Resistance, that's why he's been the target for regime change. Ehud Barak, the former Israeli defense minister and prime minister, he said in 2012, just as the Syria war was really exploding, he said that if we overthrow Assad, this will be great for us

because it would undermine the Ax acts of resistance led by Iran. Recently, President-elect Trump issued a rather startling statement on his truth social. You may have heard this. Those responsible, he's referring to the capturing of Israeli hostages, will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied history of the United States of America. What is he talking about? He's doing what Trump does, which is issuing threats, looking like a tough guy and telling Hamas that it's going to face, I don't know, some new, like another level of genocide. I mean, they're already facing a genocide. So I'm not sure what more Trump can threaten beyond using nuclear weapons. But that's just Trump trying to look tough and trying to appease his, you know,

anti-Palestinian, pro-Israeli government donor class. What he will actually do upon taking office, especially after he campaigned on being the president of peace and ending all these wars. I don't know. Didn't, I should have asked you this earlier when we showed Secretary Austin as General Austin, but didn't Secretary Austin actually threaten the Israeli government if it didn't allow a certain modicum of aid into Gaza, the United States would respond by holding up everything we give to them. And then when the time came, did nothing, nothing. That's exactly what happened. Secretary Austin and Secretary of State

Einstein Blinken wrote that letter to Israel shortly before the U.S. election saying that unless you allow more humanitarian aid, there will be unspecified consequences. And of course, what happened when the U.S. deadline passed and there was still a starvation siege by Israel of northern Gaza? Biden did nothing. That's perfectly consistent with his policy going back more than a year. Do you think that the United States had anything to do with the attempted coup in South Korea, the proclamation for martial law, which was eventually rescinded six hours later. There wasn't a peep out of the White House. There wasn't a peep out of the State Department, the Defense Department, the U.S. ambassador or the commanding general of 28,000 troops right there.

Yeah, well, given how much influence the U.S. has in South Korea, including a massive troop presence, I do think that's fair to speculate. I haven't looked into this too closely, but I have to wonder here about the connection to Ukraine. And the connection to Ukraine, by the way, also has a spillover into Syria, which I'll get to in a second. But what's happening in Ukraine? You have the U.S. and Ukraine accusing Russia of fighting alongside North Korean troops. And this is why the Biden administrationS. and Ukraine accusing Russia of fighting alongside North Korean troops. And this is why the Biden administration claims it gave Ukraine permission to use attack missiles to strike into Russia, because allegedly North Koreans are fighting alongside

Russia. But yet, where's the evidence for these North Korean troops fighting alongside Russia? Isn't that pretty much recognized as bogus right now? Well, that's what I think yeah and I've the only evidence that I've seen Ukraine try to put out is some photos of some soldiers who look mildly Asian but again you know that region is in Eurasia and so people are going to maybe look like they come from that from that continent from that region and I there's no evidence that these soldiers are actually North Korean there were North Koreans inside Russia training with Russian troops, but that goes back many years.

And so I wonder to what extent South Korea is now feeling the spillover effects of that, because they've been under pressure not only to arm Ukraine, but to send troops into Ukraine to fight these fictional North Koreans. And I wonder if this martial law attempt is a part of some, maybe is a response to perhaps some pushback from that against the government on that. It's worth speculating because of the pressure that South Korea is under. And where does this martial law come from? Is this just about a budget issue and an internal dispute over some parliamentary issues? I don't think so. I do think it's fair to speculate what the role of Ukraine is here. And then think about the role of Ukraine and what happened in

Syria. It was just reported in the New York Times that Muaz Mustafa, who's a State Department-funded lobbyist inside Washington, lobbies for crushing sanctions on Syria, and is in close contact with the al-Qaeda-led insurgency. He said that the insurgents in Syria were in touch, in close touch with Ukraine and are cooperating in some ways, and that they wanted to basically take advantage of Russia's weakened position. So this is just an example that supporting U.S. hegemony in one country will have a spillover effect in others that, you know, this proxy war in Ukraine has had this massive spillover effect and now it's fueling a crisis that had died down in Syria. That was a brutal war where there were so many people died. The country was, you know, in large parts of it left in rubble. I've seen it myself. It's horrible

what happened inside Syria. And now, in due part because of the proxy war in Ukraine, we're seeing violence reignite inside of Syria. It's like we're on this constant feedback loop based on decisions taken by the team in office right now. It was under Obama and Biden that the U.S. launched this dirty war in Syria. It was under them that they overthrew the government of Libya and then used weapons looted from Libya to arm the al-Qaeda-dominated insurgency inside of Syria. And by the way, that's why Christopher Stevens, the ambassador, and other Americans lost their lives. They were at the annex in Benghazi that was being used to run guns from the looted Libyan

stockpile into Syria. And now we have Syria once again flaring up into another catastrophe. So these hegemonic decisions don't just have an impact on the country directly being targeted. There's a massive spillover effect and blowback everywhere. This is a brilliant, brilliant analysis you've just given us. And I don't see any hope for a reform of this behavior. I mean, Tulsi Gabbard has her own views of this, but the CIA will do what it wants under John Ratcliffe and do what it wants under Donald Trump. This is only going to get worse, not better. Well, it is important to note that there are

people now in high positions, Tulsi Gabbard, if she gets confirmed, and Donald Trump himself, who have recognized this reality before. When Trump ran for office in 2016, he recognized that the U.S. was fueling an al-Qaeda-dominated insurgency. He even said, he even accused Obama of creating ISIS, which I think was an exaggeration, but there's truth to it in the sense that the invasion of Iraq, which wasn't under Obama, it was under Bush, that created ISIS. And then the U.S. did sit back and watch, as John Kerry admitted, Obama's Secretary of State, the U.S. sat back and watched as ISIS

spread in Syria because the U.S. wanted to use the growth of ISIS as leverage to oust Assad. So Trump is aware of this history. So is Tulsi Gabbard. She's spoken up about it before, very bravely, I should add. So which version of Tulsi Gabbard. She's spoken up about it before, very bravely, I should add. But so which version of Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump will show up when they take office in January? We'll find out. But, you know, as you as you indicated, it's very difficult to go up against an entrenched bureaucracy that has a habit of doing whatever it wants, no matter how disastrous the consequences for everybody. Aaron Mate, thank you, my dear friend. No matter what we're talking about,

it's a pleasure to hear your analysis and to allow me to pick your brain and take advantage of all your prodigious research. Thank you so much. We'll see you again next week. Sounds good. Thank you, Judge. Of course. All the best. Coming up tomorrow, Thursday, Professor Gilbert Doctorow at one in the afternoon, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson at 2 in the afternoon, and Professor John Mearsheimer at 3 in the afternoon. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thank you.