Judging Freedom - Alastair Crooke: Can Trump Save the US From Itself?

Episode Date: January 6, 2025

Alastair Crooke: Can Trump Save the US From Itself?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 Monday, January 6, 2025. Alistair Crook will be here with us in a moment on, can Trump save the United States from itself? But first this. We're taught to work hard for 35 to 40 years, save your money, then live off your savings. Unfortunately, there are too many threats undermining the value of our hard-earned dollars. The Fed's massive money printing machine is shrinking your dollar's value. Just the cost of groceries is absurd. Let me be brutally honest. I think the dollar is on its way to being extinct.

Not just here, but globally. The BRICS nations, led by Russia and China, threaten to remove the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Central banks have been shifting away from the dollar and into gold. And if we go to central bank digital currency, that will not only destroy the dollar, but we will lose our freedom. We will lose our privacy. They can track anything we do.

You need to take care of yourself and your family. So here's what you need to do. Immerse yourself in knowledge and information. The writing is on the wall. Now is the time to consider shifting some of your dollars into gold and silver as your bedrock financial asset. Call my friends at Lear Capital, the leader in precious metals investing for over 27 years. They helped me diversify into gold and silver. They can help you too. Call Lear today at 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com. Alistair Crook, good day to you and welcome to the program. Your time, of course, is very much appreciated. Is sustained peace between the United States and Russia feasible, given the depth and cultural length of American hatred for Russia? That is to be proven, and that we will have to see whether it is possible.

I think that sustainable peace is extremely difficult because of the way this war has been conceptualized. I mentioned before, and I've written about it in Substack, about what happened in the 70s with Brzezinski, creating identities, cultural identities as a way of warfare. First of all, in Afghanistan, it was the jihadists against a secular to create a coup d'etat in Kabul to bring in the Russians and to damage Russia that way. In Ukraine it's different. During the war many of western Ukrainians fought with the Germans principally against the Poles first of all and from that they developed a sort of sense that they were actually they adopted somehow the sort of German sort of sense of being European. They saw themselves as being European. They weren't, they were Stislavs, but they saw themselves as being European and they adopted, if you like, that sort of German cultural identity. And what Brzezinski saw was the opportunity to leverage this against Russia, if you like, to categorize Ukraine west of the Dnieper River as Europe,

a European state battling against Slav, Asian values, Russia. And that was how it was conceptualized. And that was what the Europeans jumped onto immediately and saw the benefit for Europe as a means to sort of a pole around which Europe could gather, defending this isthmus of Europe stuck in a hostile Slavic world. How to protect that? How to set that up as Europe versus, if you like, Slavic values, Slavic world of Russia and Central Asia. And so this has made it much more difficult because, of course,

the pressure will be on Trump, not just to have a ceasefire, not just to have a simple agreement about where things will stop and what will be negotiated this way or that way. But it is about then, it is very difficult then for, if you like, Trump to give up the idea of this sort of European isthmus and putting it in the Russian side and allowing it to become, if you like, a part of Russia, of Slavic Russia. And so this is why it was done, to make it an obstacle. But it is an obstacle, and it's an obstacle a day that Trump is going to have to deal with.

Because if he goes there, and this is the great danger and why he's saving America from itself, is because if his envoy goes there and talks just about a ceasefire and leaving part of Ukraine to be European and put in the European Union and then be rearmed by NATO, Russian knows it's not acceptable because it will just all start again. The war will start again in two or three years' time. And that's not acceptable. They want a big deal, in other words, a big picture deal, setting out security architecture across the whole of Europe and Central Asia, in which limits are set for American interests and limits are set for Russian, Chinese and Iranian interests and BRICS interests. And they want to do that. Now,

the problem is that if the envoy or Trump finds that their initial plans, their thoughts about how to deal with Ukraine just don't work, then we are left on the precipice, literally walking the cusp of that precipice, because the only solution then is to escalate. The pressure will be on Trump to escalate to get more leverage over Russia, over Moscow, and will go further along this dangerous precipice, which could lead to the Third World War, ultimately, if it goes on escalating and Russia responds to it. So what he has to do in a way is find a way of moving the negotiation out of that trap into escalating it to one where it's about, if you like, resolving the big problems, missiles, how to, what is the relationship, where is the frontier of NATO? I mean, is it on the borders? Getting rid of that pretext that NATO decides where its borders are. No, it affects the security of others too. So

that's what he's got to do. But it's a very dangerous thing. So saving America, if you like, from itself, of its reluctance, what do I mean by itself? Of its, if you like, from itself, of its reluctance. What do I mean by itself? Of its, if you like, obsession with the idea America is the greatest, America is strong, America leads the world. And to usher America gently along the path towards a multipolar world, where it will be a very prominent part. This attitude of American triumphalism and the jaundiced view of Russia

is not just shared by General Kellogg and the national security team that President-elect Trump wants to have around him. It's pretty much shared by Americans. I mean, this has been culturally American, at least since World War II, certainly going back to the Scoop Jackson, he's being buried this week, Jimmy Carter years. I mean, can Trump change this around? Does Trump see that this jaundiced view of Russia and unrealistic view of American triumphalism is going to lead to perpetual conflict rather than big picture peace?

I don't know. And I'm quite concerned because, you know, you rightly say many, many Americans, it's not just neocons or extremists share that view. Many Americans have that view. It's been inculcated. Now, can he change it? The problem is it's like, you know, the horse and the cart, which comes first. Is it the cart before the horse or the horse before the cart? I mean, the aim of Trump must be to psychologically prepare the United States that this era, if you like, of primacy, this era of greatness, you know, has to moderate down to more realistic expectations of American power and what it can do in the well. And in doing that, transform the United States and make it ready to understand that they can't go on, partly because the whole world has turned against it.

It can't go on like that. So what has he got to do? In the sense, I mean, he's got to transform it, but it hasn't transformed yet. So if you like the cart before the horse, it's not a transformed America he's dealing with. He's dealing with America that still believes in greatness and leadership of the world, and then he's got to lead it to that transformation. So in a sense, it's back to front. If he had the transformation first and then led it along that path more gently, it would be much easier. And so I think it's very difficult. And I think the same is Iran for the nuclear issue, the JCPOA, it's called, that deal also was accompanied by understandings.

Obama wrote privately to the Supreme Leader of Iran, and in the letter, the Wall Street Journal has a sort of account of it even now. It recognized sort of Iranian equities in Syria and Iranian equities, I'm choosing that word carefully, in Lebanon and even within the Palestinian context. And saw it as a balance of powers, not only between, if you like, Saudi Arabia and the Arab world against the Persian world, but a balance of powers, Syria on one hand and the other. Why? Because even then it was quite clear

Obama did not trust Israeli ambitions. And he believed that it was necessary to get to a Palestinian state. And to get to the Palestinian state, he needed, if you like, the pressure of the balance that Iran was there. And that there was, if you like, Hezbollah, and there was Syria, and there was the Palestinian groups there. And this was how he saw the only way. And this is what we've had during this period with what I call the Biden-Obama process, was precisely that of sort of American protectorate of, first of all, Gaza. I mean, Biden hasn't followed it exactly, but that was the Obama plan,

and that was what was initially laid out, and constraints on Israeli action to keep these balances in place. What's happened now is that Netanyahu has destroyed all those balances in the region. Syria is gone. Lebanon has been severely weakened. All the balances that could push Israel, but the pressure on which Obama had tried to do, they didn't like each other, Netanyahu and Obama, as everyone knows. It was Netanyahu who sabotaged or tried to sabotage the nuclear deal

in Congress before a sitting president to say, no, the neocons don't like the Obama plan at all. Why? Because they want the kingdoms, the Saudis, the monarchs, the emirs, if you like, to balance, be the balance and to be the powerful second. And so this is now broken. So what does Iran do in those circumstances? How can Iran react? I'll just finish very quickly. Iran can do two things now, because all of the, if you like, all of the old Obama understandings have been smashed. And that's obvious. So it has a choice of two things. Either to go back to some sort of nuclear

agreement like they had in 2015, but, you know, it never worked. I mean, look at the, you know, poverty in Iran. It's getting like Syria. You know, there's no economy because of sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. They added some more last week on Iranians, in other words. Or it can do something else, which is go to True Promise 3. That is the Iranian, a successor to the two Iranian attacks on Israel. This time, not so much just as a deterrent, not controlled by the sort of Obama-Biden sort of structures trying to stop these exchanges going too far, but by actually forcing the United States to think about negotiation seriously, not as a sort of, to make Iran just a supplicant in this, and also to make it show that it is a victory for the United States and Iran is both improbable

and will be at an unacceptable cost. In which case, if they do promise a true promise three, it has to be big, massive, and put real costs onto Israel and onto the United States. So, I mean, we're moving again. We're walking along the cusp of war, bigger war. Who knows where it will lead to? But the whole Middle East has been smashed in terms of all the balances are gone,

all the things that keep forces in check, that keep things from spilling over from one area to the next area to the next area. All of those have been smashed by Netanyahu. The logic of what he's saying is, I smashed all of your Obama agreements. They're all in ruins. The only thing to do is to finish it off, smash Iran. Well, you have speculated in your interesting piece, Can Trump Save the United States from Itself, that Trump is an exceptionalist himself and believes in virility and masculinity and strength.

And if he fails to negotiate an end to the fighting in Ukraine in a way that is acceptable to President Putin and doesn't embarrass the United States, he may very well, in order to advance that Trumpian view of virility and masculinity, attack Iran. Is that realistic, Alistair? That's just what I've been saying. I've been saying that the logic of the situation, Netanyahu set this up, that this is, you know, this is the logic he smashed. There is no, there's no way of having a balance in the region anymore. He has smashed the Obama scheme. And that was in order to stop precisely what I think we're heading towards, towards a war with Iran. Now, of course, I've seen, you know, Axios and other newspapers have been suggesting that the Biden team are looking at how to do this war or how to attack Iran even last month. And

of course, it is constrained by the fact that an outgoing president cannot really commit a war, start a war. It would be regarded as very unlikely. But Netanyahu can do it for him it's very easy for netanyahu to say oh we're going to go in we're going to go in and destroy the the air defenses or the missiles now that we've destroyed syria it's easy it's going to be easy we will go in and that's why i think Iran has to consider the options. The options that it's only left with really is either to do a very strong true promise three, which really underlines the costs that it just simply going on in this way of deterring the uh Israel is not sufficient you've got to break the Paradigm in order to get back to a real negotiating are the Mullins likely to fire the first shot it's possible yeah It's possible. Yeah, it's possible. It's possible because, you know, I know there are elements within Iran on the reformist side that are thinking to a certain extent, you know,

well, we'll offer negotiations. But as I've just underlined, look at the Iranian economy. It's got worse and worse since the nuclear accord was in place. Because of sanctions were never lifted, they go on, more sanctions are coming. There's the example of Syria before us all. What happens when you don't have an economy left? When people are really getting hungry, where they don't have electricity, where they don't have the means of survival. Inflation is something like 33% in Iran.

The economy is not great under this present administration. So they only have the Israeli, because of all the balances have been destroyed by Netanyahu and not really maintained by the Biden team. They probably quite pleased they were destroyed, but they've been destroyed now. There's no checks and balances in the region any longer, and so it can easily spread. And so not only in Ukraine, but I think Trump will find himself very easily because no doubt he will sort of revert to the 2014 idea that he can sit down with the Iranians and do a deal. He can, but not the sort of deal that was done over the years, which just leaves countries under siege and their economies collapsed. So for Iran this is a real crux, point of inflection, how to deal with this situation in the region where everything, Obama carefully did this,

on the one hand he gave equities to Iran and in the same time he allowed Saudi Arabia to bomb, to attack Yemen, to go to war with Yemen. So all of this was sort of very Catholic. Why? Because only with the pressures of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and all of that, he believed only with that could Israel be pushed and persuaded to move. And he saw the Palestinian state as essentially being a sort of international protectorate, overseen by the United States. And Lebanon would be a sort of protectorate. That was the whole point of the Hochstein visits and the maritime negotiation to make these sort of Iranian equities but under severe constraints and severe constraints on Israel. So you know when Iran attacked Israel on the 13th of April, you know, America went into overdrive to say, no response from Israel, no response,

let's, you know, stop this, close it down. Well, now Netanyahu is, he's, if you like, you know, nuanced that particular game by just smashing up all of the structures that America has been trying to place. I might add to the delight of many neocons who never liked the Obama schema for the Middle East, and I never thought it was very likely to work either, but nonetheless, it was a pattern of balances and structures. And without it, then the logic is moving inexorably towards a conflict with Iran. It's the obvious thing. After Lebanon has gone into ceasefire, Syria is no more. It has been crushed. The Iraqis are under enormous pressure from America. America's putting more troops into Syria. I mean, you know, the obvious direction for Netanyahu is now to finish it,

finish this game that he's done of destroying the Obama. A brilliant analysis, as always, for which we are deeply grateful. Thank you very much, my dear friend. We look forward to seeing you next week. All the best. Thank you. Of course. Coming up later today at 10 this morning, Ray McGovern at 1130, Larry Johnson at noon,

Scott Ritter, and at four o'clock, my friend on the economy, Kevin DeMeritt. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. We'll see you next time. your degree in the new year in the bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu.