Judging Freedom - Aaron Maté : While Trump Is Stalling for Time…

Episode Date: June 10, 2026

Aaron Maté : While Trump Is Stalling for Time…See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Dear Canadian exporters, our ambitions, our ideas, and our potential, were never meant to be boxed in. Nothing can contain us. With the support of Export Development Canada's market insights and financial solutions, you can turn obstacles into opportunities, discover new markets, and keep our nation front and center on the global stage. The world needs more Canada. Together, let's give it to them. Visit edc.ca to learn more. 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? What if Jefferson was right? What if that government is best, which governs least? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong?

What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now? Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. Today is Wednesday, June 10th, 2006. my friend Aaron Matte joins us now. Aaron, thank you very much. You're such a faithful friend of the show, and it's a delight to be with you every week. How desperate is Trump for an off-ramp from the Iran war? How dangerous for him is this mess he's created? It's extremely dangerous, but I don't think he's desperate. I think he's just stalling for time

because he doesn't want to make a deal. I suspect he's been told that if he's, just holds out a little bit longer, Iran eventually will crumble because of the economic pressure is under. Recalled that his regime change war, although it failed to over to the government, it did cause serious economic damage inside Iran. They bombed industrial plants. Millions of people have been affected by this. Job losses in Iran, I don't know the exact number, but I suspect it's in the millions. People are struggling. He has this blockade, this so-called blockade still going on of the Stod of Hormuz. And I think he's been told that if he just keeps us up a little bit longer,

the country will eventually collapse. And so I see this whole routine he's been doing now for, you know, weeks upon end of claiming that a deal is at hand. We're almost there just a few more days. And how many times have heard him say this? It's been dozens of times. I think he's stalling for time to prevent a deal. Because what would a deal entail?

It would entail him doing all the things that he's been trashing since his first term, recognizing Iranian sovereignty, letting Iran have an economy by lifting sanctions, returning stolen money to Iran. When Obama did that under the JCPOA, Trump made a big protest about that and claiming that Obama had somewhat paid off Iran with U.S. money when really all Obama was doing was returning a fraction of the money that the U.S. is stolen from Iran for decades upon decades. Trump doesn't want to do that. He doesn't want to accept the terms that he's been really against for the last decade. And so although he's extremely dangerous what he's doing, and we've seen now recent flare-ups

just over the last few days with Iran and Israel trading fire, and then the other day after Iran down the U.S. helicopter, the U.S. targeting Iran again, and now Trump, as we're going to air, is talking once again about resuming the bombing. So incredibly dangerous because you have a president who doesn't care about diplomacy and is actually hostile to the idea of recognizing Iranian sovereignty. I don't see a real desperation for an off-ramp. Why do you think Iran is willing to risk further war with the United States and Israel over Israel's invasion of Lebanon? They're a proud nation, and Lebanon has absorbed a lot of pain because of their commitment to being Iran's ally,

and Iran just doesn't want to abandon a key ally. and also I think sees these images of Israel causing ethnic cleansing in the south of Lebanon, targeting the Shia community, and there's a real sort of sense of solidarity there from the government of Iran. And yes, they've been willing to risk a resumption of war over it. They've made that absolutely very clear. And I think the U.S. and Israel were hoping that Iran, because of all the pain and suffering, would be willing to abandon Hezbollah and the people of Lebanon. that gamble hasn't paid off.

You talked about the economic damage to Iran brought about by the initial round of bombing. But isn't it true that Iran's offensive weaponry is now stronger than it was on February 28? Well, I do know that officials in the U.S. intelligence community did leak assessment saying that Iran's arsenal is very much in whether it's stronger, I can't say. What I do know is that these underground cities that Iran has built to produce weapons and store them have been very effective. And Trump and Netanyahu don't seem to have a military solution to that. That's why Trump has not gone to war is because these underground facilities where Iran keeps its weapons

that has nullified Trump's offensive capacity in terms of destroying Iran. So that's part of the problem here. Trump doesn't have a military solution, but he also doesn't want to admit defeat and doesn't want to recognize Iran's sovereignty. Hence this repeated ruse, this long-time ruse of pretending he's very close to a deal. One of the networks counted 37 times that he has said a deal is coming in the next two days. The stock market sometimes believes him when he says that, but I don't know of any respectable geopolitical analysts that. Yeah, and I guess the question is how long can those who run the financial system continue to believe this? It continue to cater to his whims.

They've done him a huge favor over the last few months because the stock market is doing pretty well, I think, by standard metrics. But that is the premise, as you indicate, on this faith in Trump's statements that a peace deal is at hand. And given that he's lied about that dozens of times, will he continue to be rewarded for that by the stock market, I strongly doubt it. And that will add to the economic pressures on him. But again, you're dealing with someone surrounded by neocons whose biggest donors are all Israel firsters. He was extremely stubborn and narcissistic.

And any kind of diplomatic agreement would require him to acknowledge, at least half of failed. And I've never seen the capacity for him to do that. But I'm still being contempt towards Iran and the idea of diplomacy with it. So I just don't see the off-ramp here. Yeah. What did you think of the New York Times story about the Israeli Mossad spying on Steve Whitkoff and Elbridge Colby, both of whom speak to the president? In my view, the story was the story.

the fact that somebody leaked it, not the fact that it's happening. We all know it's happening. I totally agree. The same thing with these intelligence assessments that were leaked saying that Iran's military is intact. That's people on the inside saying that they're not happy with all the damage that Trump's war has done. And they also recognize the futility of it. So the fact that these leaks are coming out shows, I think, deep frustration inside the intelligence community with Trump's regime change war, with how close he is to Israel. And so leaks like this claiming that Israel spying on the U.S.

are a way to try to create some distance and warn the public about how just enmeshed the two countries have become. At a time when you have a congressional effort to increasingly link the U.S. and Israeli militaries by essentially codifying laws that make them inseparable. So the normal process, the formal process every year of having to review U.S. assistance to Israel, they're trying to do away with that to make it sort of automatic and built into the system. So I see stories like this as a way to warn against that. Let's switch to Netanyahu for a few minutes.

What is the conundrum facing him between the public on one hand which wants the invasion of Lebanon and the president on the other who is trying to stop it? Not for moral reasons, but because he wants some kind of a deal with Iran so that the American economy will improve in time for the elections, which I don't think

is even possible, but that's probably his thinking. Well, I don't know how much of a conundrum it is. I don't think Netanyahu would be acting if you didn't have the green light of the U.S. After Iran retaliated against Israel in recent days for its attacks on Lebanon, Israel bombed Iran, and Trump claimed that he didn't know about it, that he wasn't aware. I don't believe that. I don't think Netanyahu would act if he didn't have Trump's blessing. And Netanyahu wants to run again for office.

He has the support of the population when it comes to his wars of aggression, his mass murder campaign in Gaza, his attacks on Lebanon, his attacks on Iran. So I think he's feeling pretty emboldened. And I suspect there's all these stories about a rift between Trump and Nanian. Yahoo. We've seen that before. This happened under Biden as well. I don't buy that. You don't think that you'd think this is an act. The Trump reportedly cursing it and I won't repeat what he allegedly said, but Trump cursing at Netanyahu. I do think it's an act because even after that report you had Netanyahu coming out and saying that, you know, we're in sync.

We'll have an argument in the morning, but we'll be on board by the afternoon. Trump saying similar things. The Biden administration homeless playbook of, you know, leaking to friendly reporters at Axios, their frustration with Netanyahu, all while giving him everything he wants to carry out acts of aggression. That's what Trump is doing too. And Trump is even closer to Netanyahu, I think, than Biden was. So I just don't take these reports of a rift too seriously. Here's what Netanyahu said to the, said to the Knesset on Sunday. night. Chris, cut number seven. A prime minister in Israel must have one specific essential ability.

Just one single ability. And if he lacks this fundamental quality, then he simply cannot be here in this position. He needs to be able to say one word to the president of the United States. And that word is no. No. An act or a message to Trump? An act. Nenia was under pressure from even more extreme members of his cabinet

because he hasn't gone even more score short in destroying Lebanon. So this is his way of placating them and pretending he is standing up to Trump. But he doesn't have to because Trump's on board with him. They have this real contempt for the fact that you have local forces, indigenous forces in West Asia who are standing up to them. And Trump even mused the other day. about getting the government of Syria involved in going after Hezbollah.

He said that the government of Syria wants to help. Now, I doubt that because if Syria were to get involved in going after Hezbollah, they'd face domestic problems and they'd face problems from other countries in the region. But my point is that Trump is desperate and shares Netanyahu's agenda of going after Hezbollah and wiping out local forces of resistance to the U.S. and Israel. So when Nanyahu claims he's standing up to Trump, I don't buy it. Here's a recent posting from Joe Kent, the resigned counterterrorism official who'll be on the show tomorrow. No deal is required for us to just walk away.

It's evident that we can't stop either side from attacking the other. There's only one realistic choice we have. Stay and get sucked further into the war. or look out for our interests and just walk. I don't know that anybody in Trump's inner circle, and we're going to be talking to Robert Barnes who has access to that circle at 1.15 this afternoon. I don't know that anybody in his inner circle

is giving him that advice now that Gabbard and Joe Kent are gone. Well, walking away wouldn't be so easy because the U.S. is so deeply involved in the region, They still have all their military bases surrounding Iran. And they have these sanctions on board. And as long as they have sanctions that are crippling deliberately Iran's economy, Iran is going to make sure that the U.S. stays involved because the U.S. will have to pay a price for trying to deny Iranians the right to live. So Joe can't.

Rights can be paid by attacking Israel or U.S. bases. Exactly. Yeah, exactly. And also Trump's Gulf allies. So I don't think walking away. is so easy. I think Trump would actually like to do that. He doesn't want to be in a war, but he also doesn't want to be in diplomacy with Iran. So if he could, I think he'd love to walk away. But Iran has said, you know, they're not going to tolerate this anymore. I mean, think about how many

years they've been under U.S. sanctions for. These carefully crafted sanctions designed by teams of people in the Treasury Department, all aimed at denying Iranians' access to basic goods, the right of Iranian banks to have access to the financial markets, all the basics that a country needs to be a normal country. The U.S. has conspired to deny Iran of that. And Iran has said that this can't go on anymore. And so they're going to continue to make sure that the U.S. pays a price for imposing these sanctions. So walking away, it sounds like an option, but for Trump,

I don't see how he could feasibly do it because Iran will also. always make sure that the U.S. is involved as long as the U.S. is imposing crippling sanctions on Iran. Well, then there's no way out of this. The Israelis are never going to agree to leave Gaza voluntarily. They're never going to agree to stop invading Lebanon voluntarily. They're never going to agree voluntarily to leave the West Bank alone. And the Iranians won't agree to do anything with the U.S. until the Israelis do what they'll never do. Have this right? Well, yes.

I mean, I don't think Iran would hold up a deal over Israel, continue to occupy the West Bank of Gaza, because that would be extremely ambitious on Iran's part. But yes, the overall problem is Israeli aggression in the region and occupation. And as long as that persists, you will always have conflict because Israel will always be trying to wipe out the forces that deter their aggression. even in small ways. And so things will only change when there's a fundamental reassessment of U.S. policy towards Israel.

Do we want to keep sacrificing the global economy? Do we want to keep setting off young people to die? Keep having these constant flare-ups of conflict just for the project of Greater Israel. That's the fundamental question that Washington has to ask itself. But that project does not enjoy the support of a majority or even a substantial, minority of the American people who are paying $6 a gallon and we're about to start the summer driving season for gasoline and who will be voting when the summer is over. Yes, but part of the problem is there's no real choice on the ballot to cut off greater Israel because you have people

like Chuck Schumer who leads a Democratic Party who say that it's his job to get aid to Israel. So there's, I mean, there are some members of the Democratic Party and some Republicans like Thomas Massey was recently defeated, who, want a change of approach, but overall, both parties are still aligned in supporting the Israeli government. And so therefore, conflict will persist as long as that remains the status quo. And I have to hope that it won't always be that way. We have to hope that there's progress in society and that one day policymakers will actually catch up to the public. It's happened before. It could happen again. It's just not happening, I think, anytime in the near future, especially

while Donald Trump is in the White House. Can Netanyahu defy Trump? Well, if Trump really wanted to, no, I don't think Netanyahu could. But Trump has been unwilling to actually impose any red lines. Recall that over a month ago, he said that Israel is prohibited from bombing Lebanon. What happened to that one? You know, so I mean, yes, Trump, if he wanted to, could impose red lines in Israel. He could say we're cutting off the intelligence and military support that you rely on.

That's the way he could do it. Same as Joe Biden could have done the same thing. Has he been willing to do that? No. So therefore, whatever Trump says in public, Naino can continue to ignore what he says because he still maintains all the qualitative and quantitative U.S. military support to continue doing what he's doing. But Trump, if he wanted to, he absolutely could change course.

Do we know if negotiations are still going on by passing, messages and information and offers and counteroffers, whatever you want to call them, through the Pakistani leadership? I don't even know about the Pakistani channel anymore, but I do know that Qatar has said that they are still engaging in talks, and I believe there's a delegation of Iranian and Qatar officials that are meeting today. So, yes, that is still happening. But is Donald Trump really serious about it?

And I just don't think he is. I just think he's stalling for time to continue this status quo for as long as he can. The Iranian military announced more or less a new policy that it is not going to respond to attacks with proportionate attacks, but out of proportionate attacks, meaning it's going to hit harder when it's been hit. And it may not even wait for the attacks to come first. This may have moral or religious implications. adverse to what the now deceased long time Ayatollah had ordered. I guess his son is ordering something different.

How do you read this? I read this as Iran making clear that the Gulf states that host U.S. military bases will continue to pay the price for Trump's world choice. That's why Iran this week went after targets in the region, including in Bahrain, and previously Kuwait, the Kuwaiti airport, was. hit. That's what Iran will continue to do, especially as now Trump. Today, he's been talking about resuming bombing of Iranian power plants. Remember when he was talking about wiping on Iranian civilization? Well, now that's back on the table. So who will get hit by Iran in response? It will be Trump's

allies and the Gulf states. So this continues because Trump won't fundamentally reassess his own policy of refusing to engage in serious negotiations. Wow. Well, thanks for much, Aaron. This is never pleasant what we're talking about, but thank you for your analysis. Deeply appreciated, my dear friend. Thank you, Judge. Sure. All the best. We'll see you next week. Coming up later today, Robert Barnes at 115, a new guest for us, a lawyer with extraordinary access to the White House. He's going to tell us how Trump makes his decisions. Is anybody whispering into Trump's ear with John Mearsheimer or Jeff Sachs or Aaron Mate or Max Blumenthal or Scott Ritter or Colonel McGregor or Colonel Wilkerson would be whispering in his ear if they were there.

That's what I'm going to ask Robert Barnes at 115. At 2 o'clock, Professor Glenn Deeson back from a vacation. At 3 o'clock, the great Phil Giraldi, Judge Napolit, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.