Judging Freedom - Aaron Maté : Why Netanyahu Needs Another War

Episode Date: February 10, 2026

Aaron Maté : Why Netanyahu Needs Another WarSee 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 Tuesday, February 10th, 2026. My dear friend Aaron Mante, just now, Aaron, a pleasure. Thank you very much for joining us for accommodating my schedule, as you always do. Are the United States and Iran still negotiating with each other in an effort to avoid a military confrontation? Yeah, the talks are ongoing, but really this ultimately comes down to Trump. Is Trump going to follow Israel's orders, or is he going to do the sensible thing, which is return to the Iran nuclear deal that he himself destroyed. All the conflict, all the danger that we're seeing is a result of Trump's decision

to tear up the nuclear deal, the JCPOA that he walked away from. But everyone, all parties involved agree Iran was complying with fully. It was the U.S. actually, that never fully complied, that never fully lifted the sanctions that it promised to lift as part of the JCPOA. And it's up to Trump whether he simply wants to admit that that was a massive mistake and a massive crime. And he obviously has a lot of people whispering in his ear and telling them to go further and now carry a new round of military conflict, including Benjamin Netanyahu, was on his way to the U.S. Before we get to Netanyahu tomorrow, the reason I ask if they're still negotiating is because it is my understanding, please correct me as you see. that the foreign minister of Iran has pretty much said, we're going to continue to enrich uranium

for civilian purposes. We will never surrender our sovereignty by getting rid of our offensive missiles in the face of an enemy trying to destroy us, and we will continue to aid our allies like the U.S. and every country around the world that has allies does. So if he did say that, what's remaining to negotiate? Well, what's remaining to negotiate is whether Trump is willing to give up his quest to force Iran to abandon. As you said, its capacity to defend itself and whether it's willing to, whether Trump is willing to simply return to the issue behind the Iran nuclear deal, which was enrichment and Iran not having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon, which Iran is happy to commit to. Iran basically wants to redo the nuclear deal. Now, the only question, for Trump to save face here, because obviously it's Trump, he's not going to make a deal that's the same.

as Obama's. So whereas the JCPOA had sunset clauses, eventually the terms were going to expire, and at that point Iran would have more leeway to achieve breakout capacity. Maybe he wants to establish something more permanent. Okay, I'm sure Iran will be happy to do that, given that they've already sworn off nuclear weapons. So this is up to Trump. Now, Iran is saying we're not going to give up our right to self-defense. So let's talk about limiting our ballistic missiles, especially after Israel and the U.S. attacked Iran last June, and now you're saying give up your only ability to defend yourself. It's a joke. And no government would ever, ever accept such terms. And also demanding that Iran and its support for its allies with the U.S. calls its proxies, which is not

true. These are Iran's allies. Iran doesn't control, for example, what Hezbollah or Ansar al-Houthis do. Iran said that's a non-starter because Iran's a sovereign country. what they are willing to discuss and what they've been willing to discuss all along. And what they made a deal over is not having a nuclear weapons program. And Trump just ripped up the JCPOA because the neocons around him told him to. It's not like Iran was doing anything. In fact, Professor Morandi says Iran is still subject to the strict inspections under the JCPOA. Are those inspections still going on?

Well, I think especially after the attack by Israel and the U.S., Iran has restricted its cooperation with international inspectors. But there is no nuclear weapons program in Iran. Tulsi Gabbard affirmed that before Trump threw her under the bus. And the reason why Trump walked away from the JCPOA is one of the reasons is the neocons and Israel don't want Iran to have an economy. They don't want the country to be able to function. The JCPO would have, the JCPOA by lifting some of these crippling sanctions, would have helped Iran have a normal functioning economy, which they're all intended to destroy. And they want to destroy that because they

want to have regime change. And that's why, you know, as I know you've talked about a lot and you've played the clips, Scott Bess and the Treasury Secretary, can't stop bragging about how his policies, his sanctions help drive the protests that we've seen in recent months. If you listen carefully to this clip, you'll hear Trump say, he's all over the place as a young man from NBC asks him, well, if you obliterated the nuclear capability, why are you attacking? He does say Iran is a mess because of us. Now, I don't know if he's talking about because of the bombings in June, which as we know, barely scratched the surface, figuratively and literally, or if he's talking because of what Besson boasted about. But I want you to listen to this. Chris,

the NBC clip. Should the Supreme Leader in Iran be worried right now? I would say he should be very worried, yeah. He should be. As you know, they're negotiating with us. I know they are, but the protesters have said, you know, where are the Americans?

You promised them we would have their back. Do we still have their back? Well, we've had their back. And look, that country's a mess right now because of us. We went in, we wiped out their nuclear. If we didn't take out that nuclear, we wouldn't have peace in the Middle East because the Arab countries could have never done that.

They were very, very afraid of Iran. They're not afraid of Iran anymore. Those beautiful B-2 bombers went in, and they hit their target every single bomb and obliterated it. And within one month, they were going to have a nuclear weapon. That was a big threat. They're not going to have it anymore.

But if we obliterated, what's the deal about? I mean, if there's no more, are they trying to restart the nuclear program? Well, I heard that they are. And if they do, and I let them know, if they do, we're going to send them right back. and do their job again. So you're understanding that they tried to restart it, and that's why you're threatening force. They tried to go back to the site.

They weren't even able to get near it. There was total obliteration. But they were thinking about starting a new site in a different part of the country. We found out about it. I said, you do that. We're going to do very bad things to you. I really don't think he knows what he's talking about, although I'm interested in your thoughts on this country. We made it a mess.

Yeah, that's a typical... blunt admission from Trump in between all the incoherence and the arrogance. He's acknowledging in there, as Scott Besant did, that U.S. sanctions destroyed Iran's economy. And yes, did create a mess. Did force people to be in very, very dire conditions, which then led to protests. But, you know, what's also revealing there is the line of questioning from that NBC News journalist, where he talks, he challenges Trump and says, you said you would have the protesters backs. And so why aren't you bombing Iran. So the question presupposes that the way to have solidarity with the people of Iran is to bomb them. How about a different way of looking at it? Like, if you have the back of the people

of Iran, why don't you stop destroying their economy deliberately, driving up the price of goods, making medicines inaccessible, crashing their currency? I mean, this is the real way to have the back of the Iranian people if you care about them, is to simply stop torturing them. But that question doesn't even cross the minds of these people. It's never, ever asked. I know, I, I, I, I don't recall a question in recent months to any of these U.S. officials saying, why don't we drop these sanctions that are hurting ordinary people? The only way you can help the people of Iran, presumably in the eyes of corporate media, is to bomb them. So I don't get it.

Israel can have nukes without signing the non-proliferation treaty. Iran, which is ready to sign, it can't. Is this just ideological and Zionist control of? of the levers of power there's no morality here none whatsoever there's no fairness there's no there's no justice probably the best thing for peace in that area would be if iran had a nuclear weapon that would keep natsun't yahut bay wouldn't it well you listen many people have made that argument i know that john meersheimer has for a long time another alternative which iran has proposed as of many other countries is a nuclear free middle east that's been discussed at the highest

levels. But whenever that comes up, and this is under any administration, whether it's Trump or Obama or Biden, it gets dismissed because, as you say, there's not only no morality, there's no legality. So under U.S. law, if the U.S. were even to acknowledge that Israel had nuclear weapons, which it developed illegally, then that would force the U.S. to cut off its aid to Israel. But of course, no U.S. government wants to go there because we insist, on Israel having nuclear weapons so we can threaten the whole region and help preserve Israeli-U.S. hegemony. So, but, and when, and for all people talking about Iran's this big threat, it's a threat to Israel. Well, Iran's proposed, let's have a nuclear free Middle East.

That would take away the problem that everyone seems to care about so much about having, about Iran's supposed a threat to Israel, but not even worth discussing in the eyes of people in power. Right, right, right. What, what can Trump expect to hear from his visit? visiting boss tomorrow? Well, I think Netanyahu will not accept any agreement if Trump is inclined to make one that only addresses the nuclear issue because for Netanyahu this is not about nuclear weapons. He knows that Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon and he knows that if Iran ever even entertains a thought of having one, it would only be to defend itself against the Israeli threat.

What Netanyahu wants is for Iran to not be able to defend itself and to stop supporting other deterrence to Israeli hegemony and aggression in the region like Hezbollah. That's what Netanyahu wants. And so he won't accept any deal that doesn't basically tell Iran, you can't defend yourself and you can't support other people who defend themselves from us, including Hezbollah. And so if Trump just wants to make a nuclear deal similar to the one that Obama made, Netanyahu will be totally against it. And that's why he came to Congress. And this was unprecedented. A foreign leader coming to Congress to try to sabotage in the case of Obama, the elected president's diplomacy that was then going on.

Nanyahu failed then, but he's won under Trump, and he wants to continue that winning streak. Obama should have denied them a visa, denied him the permission to enter the United States. It really is unprecedented that a foreign leader would address Congress to change its mind on what it's debating that came over from the White House. I don't believe that's ever happened in American history. Yes, and then it continued after the election in 2016, in late December 2016. Obama is on his way out. And finally, Obama decides for the first time in his eight-year presidency, he is not

going to veto a UN Security Council resolution critical of Israel as he's leaving office. So he finally is now politically safe. He can now no longer protect Israel for a vote at the UN that was critical of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. So this is unprecedented. The U.S. is not going to veto a measure that is critical of Israel. So what happens? Netanyahu calls up the Trump camp, which is coming into office, and tries to get the

incoming Trump team to sabotage this vote at the U.N. And the Trump team complies. Michael Flynn, his incoming national security advisor, got on the phone and called foreign countries, including Russia and others, try to get somebody to veto this measure. But nobody did. And it passed. So that was another act of basically Netanyahu. trying to sabotage the elected president's policy.

And this time he did it with the Trump's direct help. Now, amazingly, this is all happening at the same time as the Democrats and corporate media are consumed with conspiracy theories that Trump is conspiring with Vladimir Putin. When it comes out in the open that Trump conspired with Netanyahu to undermine the elected president, no one care because support for Israel is bipartisan. To the point where people like Kamala Harris, I believe she even co-she's actually co-sponsored a resolution. to condemn that UN vote that Obama is going to let pass, which just shows you how beholden both parties are to Israel. Well, I mean, what Mike Flynn did on its face is a violation of the Logan Act, which is a private citizen purporting to interfere with and affect American foreign policy.

Bill Casey did the same thing with the Iranian takeover of the hostages in the end. American embassy when Reagan got elected basically said don't listen to Carter we're going to negotiate whether ones and amazingly and amazingly Michael Flynn was soon afterwards forced to resign over what was said to be a violation of the Logan Act but it wasn't him trying to undermine a vote at the UN on behalf of Israel it was him calling the Russian ambassador and saying listen don't retaliate to the Obama administration kicking out Russian diplomats in response to the phony Russia gate claims. So Flynn gets ousted over

an act of de-escalation, but he wasn't ousted over an act of a measure critical of illegal activity, which israeli settlement. And then he was bankrupted by his legal fees, and then he pleaded guilty, and then Trump pardoned him. I mean, the whole thing was the whole thing was a mess, which began with this event that you just characterized. Why did and if the premise of my question is different than your understanding, please address it. Why did Netanyahu ask Trump not to bomb Iran a month ago in the middle of January,

and now he wants it? Nenjahou only attacks people who he's convinced can't fight back. And he knows now, after the experience last time when Iran fought back, that Israel isn't sufficiently prepared for another. other act of aggression against Iran. So he wants more time to build up his air defenses. Just as he attacked Iran because Iran was rebuilding its air defenses, he now wants more time to pair of another attack on Iran to build his own air defenses.

That's what it comes down. So does he believe that he can resist a ferocious attack from Iran today, tomorrow? Well, I think he asked Trump to delay precisely because he can't. He's not sufficiently equipped to do that right now. But they will attempt to fortify their air defenses. And once they do, I'm very confident then he will be all gung-ho on another round of aggression against Iran. Does Netanyahu, in your view and your understanding

of domestic Israeli politics, need a war in the very near future to divert the Israeli public's attention from his growing, domestic woes? Yes, but at the same time, let's say he was out of office. Would a different Israeli prime minister be advocating a different policy? I don't think so. When it comes to matters of hegemony and aggression, the Israeli government is united across the spectrum.

So it's not as if I think that if Netanyahu was somehow finally, after more than 30 years of basically being the king of Israel, if he was somehow displaced, the policy would be different. This is a fanatic government when it comes to a. aggression and hegemony across the spectrum because they're all committed fundamentally to stealing Palestinian land and denying Palestinians the right to self-determination. And Iran, by standing up to Israel and supporting other people who resist Israeli aggression, they're a major problem. And so they have to be taken care of.

So even if Nehahu was gone, I don't think we'd be seeing much of a different policy. has the revelation of the 3 million documents in the Epstein files resonated in Israel at all and do you subscribe to the view that

Netanyahu has Epstein-related dirt on Trump? I haven't followed the reaction that Israel to Epstein and look I've been skeptical before this claim that Trump is being blackmailed by Israel through Epstein. I wouldn't be surprised if there's something damaging

in the Epstein materials about Trump and Epstein, given the relationship and given the Trump as an admitted sexual predator and so was Epstein. So when they hang out together and they have all these extensive dealings, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump has something to hide. But in terms of Israel using this to blackmail Trump, I just, I don't know. Listen, to me, it reminds me of Russia Gate. I spent many years pushing back on Russia Gate, which is idea that Russia was blackmailing Trump. And so I have to go by the evidence. And I, my sense is that Trump is being coerced and controlled by Israel in the same way all politicians have been for a long time, which is through the role that Israel plays as a proxy of the U.S. in ensuring Israeli U.S.

hegemony in the region. It's, you know, like back when Joe Biden in the early 80s was saying that, you know, we, you know, if Israel didn't exist, we'd have to build it ourselves and it's our unsinkable aircraft carrier. Is that because Epstein was blackmailing. him back then. I don't think so. It's a combination of the role Israel plays is for U.S. hegemony and all the money that pro-Israel elites have, like the Adelson's, who have spent so much money helping Donald Trump. It doesn't mean I know for sure that, you know, there's not some blackmail going on. I mean, I get it. I get it. You again, manifest such sensitivity to intellectual honesty that I admire you for it. But let me say, Judge, I'm happy that

people suspect Israel of being behind because it makes sense because they are to me the embodiment of evil and so I get it I get why people think I mean how can all these politicians be so beholden to this evil state I totally get it I still have to go with what the evidence says and I just have to be modest on that front yeah so just a few minutes ago one of the two congressmen who authored the Epstein Transparency Act one is Thomas Massey the other is wrote Conna, this Congressman Connor from California released the names of six men that he saw yesterday when he saw the files and saw no explanation for why the Justice Department didn't release them. These names mean nothing to me. Salvatore Nuara, Zureb Mikalazi, sounds like it might be

Israeli, Leonic Leonov, Nicola Caputo, Sultan Ahmed bin Soleiman, And of course, Leslie Wexner. How the hell they can hide Wexner's name? He's the one that financed, I think. I don't know if he's still alive or not. Financed Epstein. What about Keir Starmor? Do you think he'll resign?

Do you think this will bring down his government? Well, listen, I haven't followed the British angle here too closely. And what I appreciate is that. that this Epstein saga is bringing scrutiny of our elites. We're not ruled by the best people, as Trump like to say about immigrants coming in from Mexico. And it's healthy to be so skeptical of our elite class. And this Epstein saga is giving voice to those

who want new leaders. And in terms of the specifics in Britain, I just haven't followed it. I apologize. All right, before we go, I want you to see this. I have never seen this woman before, she's rather articulate now. Congresswoman Melissa Stansbury from either in Mexico or Arizona, just lets Trump and the elites. It goes after Howard Lutnik. Watch this. Number 10, Chris.

Let us be clear that Donald Trump is not only named thousands of times in the latest release from the Department of Justice. He is named over 38,000 times in the files that were released two weeks ago. alone. And we know that that only represents half of the files that the Department of Justice has in its possession, including files that were used for direct investigations of perpetrators, people who committed crimes, people who were co-conspirators in those crimes, and individuals who knew of those crimes. We know that there are multiple administration officials, including Howard Lutnik, Elon Musk, who served as the appointee for the Doge efforts in the White House. We know that the Secretary of Navy.

We know that Steve Bannon. We know that there are more than three dozen associates, family members, and individuals directly associated with Donald Trump named in those files. Now, there are now at least nine or ten other countries across the world that have opened investigations or forced their leaders to step down because of their mere association with Jeffrey Epstein. and the United States government is engaged in an active cover-up of the largest sex trafficking scandal and influence peddling scandal in the history of the United States, and Donald Trump is right at the center of it. One of those countries, Israel, is Ahud Barak in some sort of trouble in Israel for his name being mentioned? We knew about Barack's involvement before the Epstein Files came out, but

but he's obviously in there. It's very clear to me that, you know, if you read the files, that Ehud, Barack, and Epstein were very close. I mean, that's very established. And, you know, geopolitically, the angle that I was most interested in that I've seen so far is that Ehud, Barack, and Epstein were really trying to push U.S. military intervention in Syria

over the chemical weapons deception that I spent a lot of time debunking this allegation that aside used chemical weapons, and therefore the U.S. should go and bomb Syria over it. Ehud Barak was discussing this with Epstein and very enthusiastic, which speaks to the role Israel played in this here chemical weapons. I deception. And Howard Lutnik, the Commerce Secretary, I mean, he seems to be in hot water because he claimed that he cut off all ties to Epstein early on, but then admitted that he actually went and had lunch with him at his island. So he'll have his family, brought his children.

Yeah. So, you know, but. But, Judge, at the same time, I'm sorry to sound like a lawyer, but just because Trump is, named thousands of times. Agreed. You don't have to worry about sounding like a lawyer. You're too smart to be a lawyer. I'll hear about that. But you're right. You're right. Just because Trump's name, he could be mentioned 38,000 times like this Congresswoman says, doesn't mean he committed a crime. Doesn't mean he did anything inappropriate. It just means he had a, as he would say, a scumbag

as a friend. Well, listen, again, I'm not given Trump's own admit. history as a sexual predator. I would not be surprised if there's an Epstein tie there. But I also just don't want to assume the maximalist narrative of events just because someone is named many times. And again, I live through Russia Gate where there was such an effort to manufacture this conspiracy between Trump and Russia. And just because someone got an email from someone who knew a Russian, that was deemed to be evidence of guilt and conspiracy. And I just, I'd be advised people. And if they really want to see this story, you know, if they really want to see justice here, that they not be at least let partisan politics take hold of this because there are, you know,

like Democrats will have an interest in painting Trump in the most negative light and possibly, you know, downplaying the role of people like Bill Clinton. And so I just urge people to, you know, use minimal standards. You know, I forgot about that. Clinton's lawyers are still negotiating with Congress to have his deposition. in public. Hmm. Hmm.

What are they going to ask Hillary about Epstein? What could she know about Epstein unless her State Department did favors for him? Well, Hillary had a notoriously very pay-to-play state department. So that's certainly quite plausible. Yeah. Aaron, thank you very much. Thanks for letting me go across the board on all these topics from Epstein Island to number 10 Downing Street.

All the best, my friend. We'll see you again, son. See you, sir. Sure. Coming up later today at 3 o'clock, Colonel Karen Koukowski at 3.45, and he has some breaking news for us, Colonel Douglas McGregor, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.