Judging Freedom - Alastair Crooke : Ceasefire for All or Ceasefire for No One

Episode Date: June 8, 2026

Alastair Crooke : Ceasefire for All or Ceasefire for No OneSee 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 preempted 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 Monday, June 8, 2006. Alster Crook will be with us in just a moment. Is Iran willing to chance another war? But first this. Today's headlines aren't just bleak. They're an indictment of a government that has abandoned the Constitution. You are witnessing the direct result of the Federal Reserve's relentless war on the value of your dollar. For centuries, gold and silver have been the ultimate shield against the state's favorite tools. Monetary expansion and runaway inflation.

To protect your wealth is to protect your liberty, and you can do that with gold and silver. I own both and continue to buy, because J.P. Morgan is now lying gold at over $6,300 an ounce, and Bank of America is suggesting silver could reach $300. That's great news for precious metal investors. Don't wait for Washington. fix a mess they created. Secure your freedom today. Take possession of your precious metals or

diversify your IRA by adding gold and silver. Call 800, 511, 4620 to see if you qualify for up to $20,000 in bonus medals. That's 800, 5114620 or go to Learjudgeonap.com. I'll stare, good day to you, my friend. Thank you, as always, for accommodating this schedule. Why is Iran willing to take its chances on the next phase of the war rather than cave to Trump's demands? Because that's how they see they can win, simply put. That's how they see it. They believe they have, if you like, leverage in many key areas, even the military area.

They believe they have leverage, but certainly the key leverage is over those straits of Hormos, and they are not intending to give that up under any circumstances. They're quite content they can control it. They're quite content that they will continue to impose fees and an authority over Hormos. But that does leave a number of flashpoints as a consequence of it. One flashpoint is the naval blockade. And so they have instituted a form of escalatory deterrence. That is, if the American naval vessels there take action to damage infrastructure in Hormos

or seize or attack Iranian vessels outside of Hormos, but plying on their way having passed through Hormos, then they will escalate depending on the circumstances. And we've seen elements of this. And it continues. Scirmishes that take place when, as over a few days ago, there was an attack on an Iranian tanker with a health-arm missile fired into its engine room,

crippling, therefore, the Iranian vessel. And in consequence, then, there was Iranian attacks in Kuwait and Bahrain as part of this escalatory deterrence. But of course, you know, how far, I mean, is there a stopping line to this deterrence? Well, it really depends on the United States. But if it goes further, if attempts by the Navy to further blockade the street, then there will be escalation, pari, Pasu, by Iran. And the same really extends to these other areas. But the most important flashpoint is Lebanon,

where from the beginning, from the April ceasefire agreement, it has been established, and the Pakistanis and Omani intermediaries have all confirmed there is a ceasefire or all, that is for all, including Lebanon and the Palestinian areas, and that is what was supposed to be implemented. Well, of course, it hasn't been implemented in Lebanon, and when Netanyahu threatened, and Katz particularly threatened, to flattened Dahi.

This is this old project that dates back to 2006. I forget who it was, which general, who actually initiated it. But flattened Dahi, flattened this major suburb of Beirut was a punishment for any actions that took place against Israel on the grounds of Lebanon. seeing this take place now, that was what was proposed. And then Iran reacted with a very strong escalatory, if you like, deterrence. They said, you attack Dahir and flattened Dahir, then we are going to farm missiles into the townships that run from the Lebanese border down to the Galilee, the northern territories the northern townships of Israel we are going to flatten them too so then there was this

backing off but still Israel has tried to impose some sort of disarmament on on on on Hezbollah, some sort of way of curbing it. And the Israeli forces are in Lebanon, flattening areas. I mean, leaving them as a sort of desert areas in the south, and establishing, trying to establish occupation over the entire south of Lebanon up to the Littani. In your recent piece, analyzing all of this, you used an interesting phrase to capture the Iranian viewpoint, which is ceasefire for all or ceasefire for no one. Do the Iranians believe that Donald Trump can restrain Benjamin Netanyahu? Well, I think they have great doubts about that.

I think they have great doubts about what he can do in. money areas, not least in the negotiations. But in this respect, no. So I mean, the response is directed both to Israel and to the United States. And it is very clear. I tried to make it plain in that piece that I just wrote about the subject.

The Lebanon for Israel has become a test case of what we call the equations of this war, if you like, the balance of power in this war. Really, since the 7th of October, Israel has adopted this new doctrine. I've talked about it before, this adopting the doctrine of permanent security. going to the route, I mean not allowing a threat to exist even in latency, potentiality at all, because of the idea that has seized many Israelis and certainly the defense force, that what happened in Gaza on the 7th of October was a genocide. It was not, but is regarded that this was a sign that,

that Israel always remained on the threshold of genocide. Genocide was not something in the past. Genocide could happen at any point again, and therefore all enemies had to be eliminated. Eliminated, they could threaten it right down to the point where the children could not emerge and become Hezbollah or Hamas also. So this was a new doctrine, very different from Bangorian's doctrine, when Lebanon was founded, which was that Israel had to stay within its borders,

small countries, small populations, small resources. It couldn't fight wars across a region. Well, now they're fighting to eliminate these potential enemies across the whole Middle East. And, of course, in this way of thinking, it's impossible for them to envisage that Hezbollah can continue to exist and can continue to be on the borders with their northern townships. These townships are now half empty. Those people have left for fear of being attacked by Hezbollah. And Israel is in Lebanon killing Lebanese.

Many thousands have been killed during this period where they've tried to seize an established an occupancy. patient. So there's a point to this judge which is you know this is not just a sort of competition about whose boss Trump or Netanyahu because when that Nathu sort of backed off attacking Beirut he was assuaged with messages coming in from all over Israel from the hard right to the opposition groups, saying, you cannot do this. You cannot allow Iran to set an equation to insist that Lebanon is part of the equation of the relationship between United States and Iran. You can't let them have command over Lebanon when they can say whether Israel can go in

and attack this town or attack people that its targets in Beirut. You can't do that. So it wasn't just about Netanyahu and Trump and who's big boss and who has a bigger say. It was an overwhelming result from Israelis saying, we can't accept us. We have to have the right to go into Lebanon anywhere and to kill those that we need. to be a threat to Israel or a threat to our townships. So it makes it a very explosive element and an element that's not going to just go away. I mean this is going to stay because Hezbollah is going to stay and the idea for staying in Lebanon

and of course there's going to be more flare-ups. And the question is what happens then? Iran will react to any Israeli attempts to impose military equivalence on Lebanon. And Israel will feel enforced to retaliate in order to preserve, if you like, the balance of power. As they see, the balance of power between Iran and Israel, because they've already lost the balance of power overall in the war on Iran, and they don't want to lose the balance of power between Israel and Lebanon. Here's what President Trump posted on his truth social just about an hour ago.

You tell me if you think this is credible. Both sides, Israel and Iran are looking to do an immediate ceasefire. final negotiations on peace or proceeding subject to ignorance or stupidity getting in its way. The blockade will remain in place and in full force in effect until a final deal is reached. Things should move quickly. Thank you for your attention to this matter, President Donald J. Trump. Another effort to influence the equity and oil markets or are telling us something we all need to know? Well, not telling us anything, you know, that is new.

What happened is that both sides, both Israel has made attacks overnight on Iran, and Iran has made attacks on Israel. And both sides are ready to stop this phase of the conflict from going, really up the ladder in a dramatic way. Neither seem to want that. So there is, all it is is a sense of, you know, I think that what I was trying to put in my piece that I was writing, we're entering into a period of episodic conflict

that is associated with the escalatory deterrence. both sides are going to try and keep their deterrent viable, and therefore the chances of attacks like this, I think, will happen. If it's not today in Beirut, it may be an escalation in Hormuz when the US may be, if you like, stop, Thor attacks, an Iranian tanker on the sea. Then we could have an escalation there with Iran hitting back at, say, Bahrain, the naval base, US naval base in Bahrain,

which they've damaged substantially in these last days. So we're in a new phase of the war. And I mean, and I have to say that in this new phase of the war, the idea of a deal arriving imminently

does not appear to be likely and is not really contemplated at this point by Iran. Iran is confident in its military, if you like, projections, both in Hormos and in the region, and it is confidence in its military strategy. And it is sticking to the leverage that it has

and is not willing to sort of back down because Trump needs a way out of this, the dilemma that he's boxed himself into. As a practical matter, doesn't Prime Minister Netanyahu risk his job and thus his personal freedom if he were to stop attacking Lebanon? Exactly. I mean, this is why I say this is something that's unlikely to disappear, that this is a flashpoint that will continue.

because you're exactly right. I mean, in fact, Nefnuhu was attacked. Now the question is, was this all set up? I don't know the answer to that, but I thought it was quite interesting that Smotrich came out and said, well, you know, maybe this was sort of somewhat

choreographed because actually I believe that what Netanyahu did was to persuade Trump that, you know, his attack, the Israelis, attack on Lebanon might put pressure on Iran to come to the negotiating table. So he was suggesting it and framing it and saying, well, you know, it was really a bit of theater sort of saying, oh, I'm the boss, I make the decisions, I'm in charge, because actually there was a sort of common interest that, you know, a limited escalation of this sort might put extra pressure on Iran to come to the negotiating table.

That, of course, would be a great error because Iran is not going to be responsive to military pressure at all. In this stage, they are quite capable, and I say they are sticking on those points in which they have leverage, strong leverage. over the United States and over Israel. So they feel they've got the cards. They have the ace cards, the ace cards which we haven't mentioned yet,

but the ace card, the prime ace cards, apart from hormones, is the fact that sitting on their doorstep is all this infrastructure, military and civilian infrastructure of energy. And that if they're attacked seriously by America or Israel, then that infrastructure will be, be attacked not in a similar way, but in an escalator, a lot of eschatillary way, going up the staircase to an

escalation. Right, right, right. Why is the former leadership of Shinbet, the Israeli domestic intelligence sort of like the FBI, warning of political violence in Israel. Well, because, you know, we've been saying this for a long time, that what is happening in Israel is a huge division and a great deal of unhappiness. For the first time, the polls show that Netanyahu would not win election if it was held now, that he's now being widely criticized across the board

by both sides of the spectrum. And he's being criticized because his grand vision, the great victory, has turned out to be a fragment of imagination. And he has not got a victory in Gaza. Hamas is still there. He certainly hasn't got a victory in Lebanon against Hezbollah. But this is opening up a wider question

because the question it opens up is whether Ben-Gurian was right from the first place, that Israel cannot support, it doesn't have an army big enough to support ongoing forever wars across the region, which would require forces five or six times of what they have. And Bangorian also suggested, you know, that military force was not the purpose in itself.

But like Pousswist, he said it was a purpose for political ends, not for just military ends per se. And so there is a big debate opening up amongst senior ones. I can't say that it's a predominant view, but the view is saying, well, maybe if this is the case, you know, we're in a trap. We are trapped by our extravagant sort of ambitions to establish greater Israel across the whole of the Middle East. We're trapped by that and maybe we ought to rethink the whole concept of Zionism today and we need to have a new thinking and a new idea because otherwise we have no strategy for Lebanon. What are we to do with Lebanon and Hezbollah? We have no strategy for Syria. or even for Iran beyond trying to get America to destroy it.

And that's failed. Clearly it's failed. I mean, this is what the Israelis are saying amongst themselves. And so, you know, so the question comes back and saying, you know, perhaps Benghorian was right when he said, we just need a small professional army and reservists, but we can't undertake major out of, out of area, actions. We just don't have that capacity. Therefore, we need to rely on politics as well as military

efforts. And so this is a big crisis. Before we go, let me bring you back to where we started. Ceasefire for all or ceasefire to no one. Trump has created or permitted Netanyahu to talk him into creating an insoluble, insoluble situation without a very insoluble situation without a And I keep using this phrase, but without an off-ram, if ceasefire for all or ceasefire for no one is the Iranian mantra, and I understand it to be, where are they going? Well, there's nowhere to go to. I mean, this is basically the problem with this is, you know,

he is not in a position to stop Israel from military action. They can do this whenever they like. And there's no real off-round for Trump. I mean, he talks incessantly about a deal. But my understanding, there's nowhere near a deal. There's no, they're still far apart and all of these issues. And anyway, in the last few days, we've heard Trump say, oh, no, there will be no return, no easing of sanctions,

there will be no return of their money. nothing will happen until there's been a final agreement on the nuclear issue after 60 days of ceasefire and then discussions will start, come on, that's not even plausible. So there's not a real sense of that. And so all of this talk, there's a deal, there's a deal, there isn't a deal, no, I'll never give anything to the Iranians, no, they can't have any of their money back. All of this has just discredited the whole process. Let's be fair about it.

The whole, if you like, process is coming apart. It's discredited that way. It's discredited in its military aspect. It has been discredited in its geopolitical aspect. It's coming apart. And there is no way out really for the United States, except to say quite openly, look, let's call it quits and we'll get out. But that's only going to happen probably when Europe or the West falls off the economic cliff.

Wow. Alastair, thank you very much, my dear friend. Great analysis, as always. Alistair's peace, serious. Alistair's peace is a great one if you can look it up. all. Alastair, thank you very much, my dear friend. Have a good day. Thank you. Same to you, Judge. Sure. Coming up later today, if you're watching us live in 34 minutes at 9 o'clock this morning, Larry Johnson, at 10 this morning, Ray McGovern, at 3 this afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Judge McAllen for Judging Freedom.