Judging Freedom - Aaron Maté : Trump’s Unconditional Surrender to Israel.

Episode Date: June 24, 2025

Aaron Maté : Trump’s Unconditional Surrender to Israel.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 Tuesday, June 24th, 2025. Aaron Maté joins us in just a few minutes on Donald Trump's unconditional surrender to Benjamin Netanyahu. But first this. While the markets are giving us whiplash, have you seen the price of gold? It's soaring. In the past 12 months, gold has risen to more than $3,000 an ounce. I'm so glad I bought my gold. It's not too late for you to buy yours. The same experts that predicted gold at $3,200 an ounce now predict gold at $4,500 or more in the next year. What's driving the price higher?

Paper currencies. All around the world they are falling in value. Big money is in panic as falling currencies shrink the value of their paper wealth. That's why big banks and billionaires are buying gold in record amounts. As long as paper money keeps falling, they'll keep buying and gold will keep rising. So do what I did. Call my friends at Lear Capital. You'll have a great conversation and they'll send you very helpful information. Learn how you can store gold in your IRA tax

and penalty free or have it sent directly to your doorstep. There's zero pressure to buy and you have a 100% risk-free purchase guarantee. It's time to see if gold is right for you. Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you. Aaron Mate, welcome here, my dear friend.

I'm scratching my head. I know we wanna talk about Trump's unconditional surrender to Netanyahu, but I'm scratching my head about the things that come out of his mouth. I mean, late last week he said if Iran doesn't surrender in 24 hours, all hell will break loose. And this morning he said, we have a ceasefire and then he says they're fighting like children and he uses the f-bomb and he doesn't know what to do about it. Is the foreign policy of the United States now subordinated to the demands of Israeli leaders? I think that's fair to say. Trump used diplomacy with Iran as a ruse to provide cover for Israel's attack. He,

even after Israel started bombing Iran, he then gave a two-week deadline, which was also used as another ruse to facilitate his own bombing of Iran. And why would he care about bombing Iran? It's not in the interests of anyone's national security. Iran wasn't threatening the U.S. Iran, as its own intelligence agencies have concluded, did not have a nuclear weapons program. So why would he bomb Iran? Because Israel wanted it, and that's what his pro-Israel donors wanted, the Mary Magdalen. It made them very happy. It made the rest of the world a more dangerous place. So yeah, it's safe to conclude from Trump's statements, even though today now he's saying he's mad at Israel,

that the overall thrust of it certainly is subordinate to Israel. When he told a reporter in Air Force One, and we've all seen this several times, referring to Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard's testimony under Earth, not her own opinion, but the consensus of the intelligence community that Iran did not have any nuclear weapons and hasn't been attempting to create one for 22 years, he told the reporter, I don't care what she says, I believe otherwise. What was that otherwise belief based on? Information from Netanyahu, from this company called Palantir that the government pays hundreds of millions of dollars to to surveil people? It was based entirely on Israel and the spin that Israel was putting on already existing intelligence. The picture you get from all the reporting that's come out from people who I've spoken to, also who Max Blumenthal spoke to, him and Anya Parnpul at the Grey Zone had a really big scoop

at thegrayzone.com speaking to a Trump administration official who told them that basically Israel was feeding the US with the intelligence picture that Trump sees, which is that Iran is close to developing a nuclear weapon. And there are certain key figures in the administration, especially CIA Director John Radcliffe, who are basically representing Israel's point of view. But this wasn't the point of view of the U.S. intelligence community.

And recall, you know, during during Russiagate, people like John Brennan, James Clapper, they handpicked certain analysts and they cherry picked intelligence. So a Trump supporter might look at that experience and say, well, based on that, why should we trust what the U.S. intelligence community says? This is far different because at this stage, when it comes to the assessment of Iran's nuclear weapons program or non-existent nuclear weapons program, what Tulsi Gabbard presented in March and still holds true today, that's the result of the consensus view of the intelligence community.

So that's multiple agencies, many analysts all coming to the same conclusion. So all that happened was Israel gave a different spin on the existing intelligence. They didn't have anything new to provide. I know for a fact from someone who I spoke to on the inside who said there's no intelligence assessment internally, even up until just a few days ago that was saying that Iran is weeks away from a nuclear, from being able to produce a nuclear weapon. So that all came from Israel. And that's who Trump chose to believe, not his own intelligence agencies.

Surprise, surprise Netanyahu lied. Yeah, that's right. And there's an article in the Washington Post today that explains why. It's not going to do with Iran's nuclear energy program, or its nuclear or its non existing nuclear weapons program. This had to do with the fact that Netanyahu saw an opportunity because in previous Israeli attacks Iran's air defenses took a hit, the ones last year. And so Netanyahu saw a narrow opportunity before Iran's defensive capability could be restored, so therefore he seized the moment.

That's what all this is about, seizing a moment where Netanyahu and Trump perceived that Iran was weak and therefore more vulnerable to an act of aggression, which is what they carried out. Why did Trump spend a hundred million dollars dropping 30,000 pound bombs on empty tunnels from which the nuclear material and their equipment had been safely extracted days and weeks before. Well, you know, this is where you have to enter into the realm of psychology and mental health. There's been reporting that basically

Trump didn't like the fact that Israel was getting most of the credit on Fox News for the Israeli attacks on Iran. And so Trump wanted in. And normally you can maybe dismiss this stuff as deceptive leaks to aiming to make Trump look bad. But based on his behavior, I think it's quite plausible that this was just part of this he wanted to look tough.

Maybe he thought in his head he could do some damage. But Iran knew this was coming. So as many of your guests have discussed, they moved out their enriched uranium prior to these strikes, so therefore leaving their stockpiles intact. So I think there's a psychological factor here, wanting to look tough on Fox News and get credit. And then there's the, you know, what are the political reasons? What's the strategic aim of trying to deprive Iran of its right to enrich uranium? Because we know it's not shopping a nuclear weapon because everybody knows Iran's not stopping a nuclear weapon,

because everybody knows Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon, and they were negotiating in good faith to put that in a binding agreement with Trump and Netanyahu sabotage. Well, Max Blumenthal has talked about this. If you undermine Iran's ability to enrich uranium, then you're basically undermining their ability to meet the needs of their population.

And what goal does that serve? It serves regime change. If there's unrest, if there's even more discontent on top of the existing sanctions that the U.S. has imposed, then if you deprive Iran of its right to produce energy and meet its domestic needs, you increase the chances of regime change. And there's also, I think, just the fact that Iran has tethered its right to enrich to an expression of its sovereignty. There's something psychological here in the eyes of foreign actors like Trump and Netanyahu who just have such contempt for Iran's existence as a state,

as a state that resists U.S.-Israeli dictates that even an expression of Iran's sovereignty must be destroyed just to teach them a lesson. In the same way that when Hamas carried out a one-day operation on October 7th, Israel had to carry out a more than year and a half long genocide just to teach the natives a lesson that you don't raise your heads to the masters of the region, which is Israel and the U.S. Under the non-proliferation treaty, which of course the United States and Iran signed and Israel hasn't, wasn't whatever they were doing in those tunnels to enrich uranium lawful, monitored, and approved. Now, it was monitored and approved by a corrupt organization, which I'll ask you about in a minute, but there's no question that Donald Trump attempted to, he didn't succeed, destroy a perfectly lawful activity in a sovereign country with no provocation.

It was completely lawful and the Israeli US attack was completely criminal. Now here is where tactically I think Scott Ritter has raised a really interesting point that tactically even though Iran was acting lawfully, was it smart for them to do? And I'm not endorsing his argument, but I think he raises a fair point that's worth considering for those of us who want to look at this in the most fair-minded way, and thinking strategically is, what is the best way to handle pathological aggressors

in the US and Israel who are committed to your destruction? And Scott's argument is that by enriching at a higher level than is needed for peaceful purposes because Iran was going up to 60%, that that helped give Israel and the US a pretext to bomb. Now one could argue to the contrary that the US and Israel would have bombed no matter what, so whatever Iran did didn't matter. The Iranian argument was that we needed to remit to 60% to give ourselves some leverage. But when you're dealing with, and this is where I think Scott's argument is worth considering,

when you're dealing with pathological aggressors like the US and Israel, whose entire strategic identity is oriented around destroying countries that aren't under their control, then you have to think about doing, or at least I think it's worth considering what Scott raises, which is not giving them any possible excuse that they can use to justify them attacking you. I think it's an interesting question that Scott's raised. The murders of Iranian senior officials, not the Ayatollah, but senior revolutionary guard, senior scientists, senior military, The Economist magazine this morning, which is well worth reading, they have a bias, but it's a great publication. I've been devouring it since I was a teenager,

which for me is a long time, is arguing that the next generation is far more hard-line than the people who were killed killed and Israel may very well have produced the opposite reaction from what it intended. Is that argument worth exploring? Well sure, I mean when you only know Israel in the U.S. as being just violent aggressors and not just in this current phase but for a long time. I mean look at the history of Israel of the US and Iran and go back to 1953 the coup US back coup that overthrew a nationalist government That made the mistake of trying to use Iran's resources for its own people not Western oil companies So therefore it was regime changed and then the Shah the violent tyranny of those years

and then of course the US supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s in his war on Iran, and then the many, many more years of aggression, including shooting down a civilian airliner and the sanctions. So people growing up with that, of course, you'll become even more hardline and defensive. And then I think another like a related question is on the issue of nuclear weapons. So the Ayatollah, yes, he's issued this fatwa against nuclear weapons. When he goes, will the successor see the same, or will he even change his mind now given the persistent aggression of Israel and the U.S. and the use by the U.S. of diplomacy to further that aggression? So everything the US and Israel has done will be to discourage

diplomacy and encourage a harder line from Iran. And who can blame them for after what they've been through with Israel and the US? So apparently, whatever this ceasefire is, it's not reduced to writing. So it's not even a cognizable ceasefire, the Mossad doesn't think it pertains to them because apparently they have said to Iranian generals, quit the regime in 12 hours or you and your family are next. We are closer to you now than the veins in your neck. This, according to Israeli sources, came out this morning. Have you heard this?

Yeah, see, I believe this comes from the Washington Post. There's an article about this. And this is not a new threat as far as I know. I believe this threat from Israel to these top Iranian generals was issued right after Israel launched its attack on June 13th. And that's when these top Iranian generals was issued right after Israel launched its attack on June 13th. And that's when these top Iranian generals were given this message, these phone messages from Israel saying, you know, resign or we'll kill you.

Now and your family and your family. Yes. Thank you, Josh. Thank you. Did a single Iranian who received this threat resign? Did any of them do what Israel told them? No. received this threat, resigned? Did any of them do what Israel told them? No, and that speaks to the national pride that Iran has as a state with sovereignty

that resists US-Israeli aggression. So this story on top of showing just how flagrantly in violation of international law is, Israel is by threatening people with violence and this is a classic terrorism basically, it also shows that Iran will not be bullied. And they've shown that in their response. I initially, again, military matters are not my forte. I have no insight into Iran's military capabilities. But just seeing how

this has played out, I was surprised by how much damage they've done to Israel. It just surprised me based on the fact that they've been under assault for so long from Israel and the US via sanctions and military strikes and other forms of warfare being bogged down in Syria With the dirty war there which was by the way a major point of the dirty war Not only to take out an ass an ally of Iran a member of the Axis resistance but also just to bleed Iran and Hezbollah so after all that the fact that they were able to stay in the fight and inflict some serious damage in Israel, personally, it surprised me. And that plus the fact that these Iranian generals who were threatened by Israel didn't back down, it speaks to a resilience that the US and Israel really underestimated. Tell me about the IAEA, what it is and the corruption of Mr. Grossi, I think his name is, who heads it.

Well, Iran has alleged, based on leaked documents, that I have not actually seen, so I can't speak to the veracity. But they have alleged that Grossi was basically colluding with Israel and giving Israel the names, as far as I understand the allegation, of even some Iranian scientists. I don't know if that's true or not. What I do know is from my own experience, you know, covering international watchdogs, namely the OPCW, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, that these are heavily compromised. The OPCW was compromised first in the lead-up to the Iraq War when John Bolton, then working for the Bush administration, engineered the ouster of Jose Bustani, the OPCW chief, because Bustani was standing in the way of the Iraq war by trying to facilitate inspections that would have undermined

the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq. And Bolton threatened Bustani, he threatened his job, he threatened his family, and Bustani revealed to me in an interview a few years ago, the US bugged his office. So, and then ultimately, the intimidation campaign succeeded because basically, the US threatened enough people and also threatened the OPCW's budget. So finally, Bustani, right after he was elected for a second term, he was kicked out under

US orders. And then of course, you have the OPCW cover-up scandal in which the OPCW suppressed its own investigation into an alleged chemical attack in Syria because the actual findings of the investigation undermined the allegation that the Assad government used chemical weapons and their findings pointed to insurgents on the ground staging a false flag. And so that was compromised. The whistleblowers were censored and maligned.

So the notion that an international watchdog could be compromised in the service of US hegemony wouldn't surprise me at all. And by the way, funny story, after Jose Bustani, the original OPCW director, after he was kicked out by the Bush administration, one of the people who came in to replace him as a deputy, not as the chief, but as a deputy to the chief was Rafael Grossi,

the new head of the IAEA. Now, does that mean he's corrupt? I don't know, but it's just a funny irony of his. But this guy Grossi is the one who the Iranians allege, and I don't, you haven't seen the evidence, I don't know if there's evidence of this, has been passing what he learned about Iran onto Mossad. That's what Iran says. I haven't seen the evidence for it. Again, I certainly don't rule it out based on how I've seen international watchdogs be corrupted. And also, moreover, even if he didn't do that, he did put out a report recently that was, I think you could argue it was disingenuous, and Israel used it to justify their case for attacking Iran. And then, grossly, after Israel and the U.S. attacked, tried to walk it back and say, no, we didn't have evidence of a nuclear weapons program. But I think he was trying to save face after helping to serve Israel, whether he did so intentionally or not.

How much damage was caused to Israel by the Iranian retaliations for Israel's unprovoked attacks? I can't speak to that, Judge, because Israel keeps a lot of that Centered so that maybe the fact that they had they've gone to such lengths to censor reporting on it speaks to great damage But I just don't know Certainly, I will say that as I said before Iran did a lot more damage than I expected them to What damage did Netanyahu do to himself? Well, that depends Whether Trump is willing

to distance himself from him. I mean, the issue now is, will Trump continue to try to enforce Netanyahu's ridiculous demands that Iran commit to zero enrichment to therefore undermine its own sovereignty and energy needs and also accept limits on its missile program, which there's no way Iran will accept now, especially after being attacked.

I mean, they never would have accepted it to begin with, because who is the U.S. and Israel to try to impose limits on Iran's self-defense, but especially now, it's just ridiculous. So is Trump going to continue to act on behalf of Netanyahu or on behalf of the best interests of the U.S. and the world? And if Trump continues to enforce Netanyahu's maximalist red lines, then yeah, Netanyahu is fine because he has the backing of his country. If you look at the Israeli political spectrum, did any Israeli leader criticize Netanyahu for attacking Iran? No, his opponents all applauded it. They're all on board. Even if you speak to critics, people call

themselves critics of Netanyahu, the kind of people Israelis will go on Al Jazeera and say critical things about Netanyahu. I haven't seen one of them to courtesize Netanyahu because they're all bought into this Israeli notion that we have to attack everybody constantly for our own self-defense. Wow. What is your view of the validity of Trump's claim that there's a ceasefire? Let me restate it. Did Netanyahu seek the ceasefire because of the damage, because we can include the intolerable damage to the Israeli state? I think that's very fair to assume, especially also since, look, these people are so bigoted and they're so driven by their supremacy

that I think Netanyahu, it's fair to assume that he probably thought that maybe after a week or two of US-Israeli bombing, the people of Iran would rise up and overthrow their government, that nobody would side with the government, and everybody would join Netanyahu, that they would listen to him after he called on them to rise up.

I mean, the nerve of Netanyahu, as he's attacking a sovereign country to tell the people there who he's bombing that he's on their side and wants freedom for them. I think in his deluded mind, let's putting it very, very generously, he may have thought that bombing alone and bombing energy plants, bombing water facilities, that'll be enough to get the people

to rise up against the government, which of course hasn't happened. So it's possible now that at this point, given that didn't happen, and given that Trump's airstrikes apparently did relatively a little damage to Iran's nuclear facilities, that wants out now as well because Iran has smartly kept its retaliation mostly on Israel. They did fire a symbolic amount of missiles at a US military base in Qatar, but they clearly telegraphed that to avoid damage. They're focusing their ire on Israel and so Netanyahu has every incentive to want to put a stop to hostilities if Trump will not continue to bail them out Before we go today is the one year anniversary of the successful combination of something for which you and I and Max and many of our friends ardently labored and wished

the release of Julian Assange from captivity in a Hellhole in the basement of a London prison. I just thought I'd mention that. Chris reminded me of it. I remember how ecstatic we all were a year ago today, June 24th, 2024. Occasionally, liberty triumphs over power. We haven't seen much of that lately. Aaron, thank you very much for your time. Safe travels. We'll look forward to seeing you next week. You're coming back to a 100 degree New York City. I'm looking forward to it. And listen, you know, in a very bleak world, sometimes there are moments of small acts of justice. And Julian Assange's freedom is one of them. Another

one just happened too with Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia student. He's been released as well and now back with his wife and newborn son. So sometimes in a very great place, some good things happen. Thanks to a courageous federal judge in New Jersey who took his time, but who did the right thing.

Yeah, that's right. Thank you. All the best, Darren. We'll see you soon. Safe travels. Thank you, Judge. You're welcome. And coming up at one o'clock this afternoon, I can't wait to hear him on all of this. Colonel Douglas McGregor, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. MUSIC