Judging Freedom - Alastair Crooke: Trump and War.

Episode Date: April 21, 2025

Alastair Crooke: Trump and War.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 Monday, April 21st, 2025. Alistair Crook will be here with us in just a moment on Donald Trump and war. 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. Alistair Krokodadia, my friend, and welcome here. Before we get into President Trump and war and your recent piece on it, is there any serious geopolitical significance to the death of Pope Francis?

That's a big question. Yes, I think there is in a sense. I was just thinking about the fact that there has been quite a noticeable rise in what I would call traditional Catholicism. And that is present in Italy, present in Europe, present in the United States. I mean by that the sort of Catholicism perhaps as represented by JD Vance, the vice president. There is a notable since if you like Trump came into office, there has been a notable shift, a notable change in a sort of more

enthusiastic move towards that type of Catholicism. And indeed, there is now quite a movement, certainly in Italy, in that direction. Whether it'll take place, how it'll turn out, I don't know. One wonders if Francis's successor will be an activist in foreign affairs. Some suggested Francis, who condemned the genocide in Gaza, if he had been healthier and younger, would have, could have, should have gone to Gaza, or one wonders if his successor will be more of a traditionalist. As you know, because you and I have discussed this affair many times, I'm a traditionalist, and maybe this is not the time to criticize Francis's papacy, but

I just hope that the next pope is Catholic. I think there is a strong, that's what I was trying to suggest, I think there's a strong push that way. Of course there will be a countercurrent, but there is a strong push and it is apparent throughout Europe and I believe elsewhere to go back to a more sort of traditional conservative. And the countercurrent will come from the College of Cardinals, half of whom it takes two thirds vote except in an It takes two thirds of the voting members of the college to elect the new pope. We'll see what happens. Okay.

You have articulated three woes confronting Donald Trump in the spring of 2025. And you articulate them as the deep state, the Israel lobby and the debt bomb. Let's start with the debt bomb because if they don't address this, it's not gonna, they're not gonna have the cash with which to fight their wars. What is the debt? Do we have nine trillion in debt that needs either to be paid or rolled over in the next year?

A little bit more than nine trillion. That during the, this was really, if you like, Yellen's sort of tripwire that she left for President Trump when she left the office of Treasury Secretary. She has spent this plurus period turning over American debt on very short-term paper. I mean, not even a proper bond, not a three or five-year, but literally, you know, months-long bond. And so this has been accumulating. And now there is a large wodge of debt that needs to be rolled over quite soon. And of course, it needs to be rolled over into longer term maturities and also higher interest rates inevitably. Already the interest

rates on American debt is now running at over a trillion a year and that's likely to go up as interest rates go up. So this is going to be and the danger is that the sort of bulk of this has to be done just before the midterm elections. So we could expect that the 26th midterm elections in America, so we could expect that the turbulence and the weakness in the bond market will continue. And why I think it's so existential for him is we've seen that this turbulence continues and is really serious because it could be like 2008 where you have, there's already been rumors, you have one big player, one hedge fund or something that has made a bet on interest rates or taken a position highly leveraged and leveraged the other side with futures, it isn't paying

off and they're having to sell a lot of good assets to pay off their leverage on these debts. And these things, once people start not to believe in the collateral people or hedge funds or banks are putting down, it spreads very quickly and the thing can actually freeze up and no liquidity can happen. And then suddenly you get in a situation where for certain types of people, there is just no bid, no one bidding at all. And you're in a crisis. I know you've been critical of former Treasury Secretary Yellen, but of course this is the Congress and each time they raised the debt ceiling and authorized the borrowing

and enacted a budget with a trillion dollar the money. It'll be borrowing money in order to pay interest on borrowed money, which of course is a recipe for catastrophe. Yeah, so this is a really, this is a really major, I mean you're absolutely right. The system has been corruptly increasing, I mean expenditure, government expenditure has been out of control for so long. So it's not just Yellen has been a process that has been going on, so you're right. But it is something which I think is why he's trying to hurry along, because he's trying to get all this sorted out well before the midterms. And he wants some wins.

And the economic situation is not so easy to produce an immediate win because it's so structural. It's a structural one of a devaluation of the dollar tariffs and bringing industry back to the United States. All of that is big structural. It doesn't happen in two weeks. It sometimes take 10 years to start new industry, manufacturing industry and bring it back.

So I think this is pushing him very strong to deal with things like Iran and Ukraine looking for a quick win and of course China. What is the deep state, the second of his woes in your article, what does the deep state want of him? Do they want the war in Ukraine to continue and the United States to continue to finance it? Are they still of the illusion that they can use Ukraine as a battering ram?

This is Victoria Nuland in 2014. They can use Ukraine as a battering ram with which to drive Vladimir Putin from office? Do they actually believe that? I don't think they believe it'll drive him out now, but yes, they want to keep the war going, particularly Europeans, because they are desperate. The economic situation is dire. They're really skirting the edge of bankruptcy in some countries. The UK is one of them. You remember what happened to Liz Truss, where the bond market rose up against her and she was forced out of office.

They're close to that now. And same in France, same Germany is entering a period of fiscal crisis also. So they are desperate and this, if you like, as this happens, Europe is fracturing, moving apart, and they're desperate about this. And the only thing that they can feel that they can bring everyone together is to shout about war and say, oh, Russia, Russia, where, you know, this is the cause of all the problems to deflect the blame from themselves, because there is a rising tide of protests that will eventually drive them out of office.

And they're aware of that. And so this is their answer to it, is to cry war and make people afraid as a means to try and sort of keep some sort of unity. Otherwise, the European Union as a project is just not going to continue because there's nothing else that's holding it together. There are deep divisions within Europe already, deep divisions within NATO.

They talk about the coalition for this war and how many people are in it? Three states, France, Britain, and Denmark at the moment. I mean, is that a coalition that's gonna take on Russia? It's going to support Ukraine? I mean, it's fantastical, but this is the message. So the deep state, but we're talking about really, it's as much the European deep state in coordination

with the American one. Both of them have a shared objective in undermining Trump's projects. That is the main aim is to undermine any normalization with Russia. And that is an American deep state interest as much as it's a European deep state interest. Perhaps even more.

Given your extraordinary understanding of the intelligence communities in the West, MI6 and CIA. Do you think that Trump, via John Ratcliffe, the director of CIA, and Tulsi Gabbard, his boss, the director of national intelligence, can control the American intelligence community? Or will it drive him crazy as it did, not literally crazy, but you know, make his life miserable as it did in his first term? Well, yes, I think they can do and there are many ways of doing it. And I just hinted at one of the things that's going on is that, you know, that there is a lot of selling of US treasuries. And although people point the finger, it's not China that actually is selling treasuries at the moment. It's coming out of Europe, probably out of London. I don't know where, you can't tell. But it is certainly coming out of Europe because you see the very obvious signs of it because tariffs are being imposed

in Europe and you'd expect the euro to devalue by the equivalent of 10% of the tariffs, instead of which it's risen by 9%. It means that someone in Europe is selling a lot of Treasuries and reinvesting the money in Euros that have driven it up so much. So you can see that. I mean, I don't know who's behind it. I don't know their motives precisely, but it is quite likely this is part of an effort to derail the Trump project as a whole jointly coordinated between, if you like, that part of the deep state, particularly in London and in Washington too.

And so they don't like that. And the other part, which is not quite the same, but those that are fiercely protective of Israel, if you like, those that are either supportive of Israel or Zionism, if you like, the institutional Jewish leadership which gives complete support, both in Europe and and in America to Israel are intent on preserving Israel. And Israel is in terrible straits at the moment. There's infighting across between the security services, within the political level.

You have two prime ministers recently, two recent prime ministers, Ehud Barak and Ahmed who both said we are at the brink. Israel is literally at the brink. 60% of Israelis say they expect civil war, the Marie-Paul says. But Ahmed and Ehud Barak are saying, you know, the thing is going to break. It's going to break. Netanyahu may go or whatever, but Israel is stretched to the limits. And it will end up in internal violence. Can Donald Trump say no to the Israel lobby? Has he already said no to Prime Minister Netanyahu

on bombing Iran? First of all, that's what the Israelis say that there was a plan and it was postponed, not that he said no plan. But where it stands at the moment is very uncertain, from my soundings since about Saturday, it seems that Iran has, despite the sort of language of, you know, it's, we're quite confident, it's been good, the meeting, that Iran has serious doubts about US motives. And they said that,

Arachi said that directly to Putin when he went to Moscow, carrying a message from the Supreme Leader to President Putin. And he said, in our indirect talks with the US, we receive contradictory and conflicting messages from the American side. Whatever their intentions or objectives may be, that's their concern. But we, at the moment, what is formally communicated at the negotiating table is what matters at the moment. But none of that was cleared up on this last Saturday, day before

yesterday. It wasn't cleared up. So the Iranians don't know. And they don't know what Trump means, because it's much deeper than just, you know, the about turn that we had from Witkoff. I think others have commented on it, but when he turned away from saying capping, if you like, enrichment, to saying that the enrichment must be completely eliminated, must be removed. And so the Iranians are not only puzzled, but they don't know what is Trump's vision for the Middle East? He talks about having a grand vision for the Middle East.

And it's not clear what it is. He talks about it as sort of creating peace. He wants to be a peacemaker. But we don't know what it is because we see it in parts. When we look at the Gaza part of it, when we look at Yemen, when we look at Syria, what you see is a sort of reorganization of power and demography to certain power brokers, sort of a resetting of power, a deal, but not peace.

And where does Iran fit into that, if the ideal is to get a sort of neutered Iran, a neutered, if you like, region that is subservient to the tutelage of Israel. We don't know if that is his thing. Maybe he doesn't want to go that far. Maybe he doesn't. But what I would say to you, basically, I think, and this is, I mean, I think probably reflected by the Iranians, when you speak to them, is really, you know, to a warmed up Obama JCPOA is not going to be seen across much of Washington as a loss, as a failure. And so where does that going to take things? So it's complicated the sort of sense.

The Iranians look at that New York Times article. They don't believe the first part of it, but they think this is just a peg. The part about how Trump stopped the talk. They don't know who leaked what. They think the main part of the New York Times article, the reason for it, was to be able to put forward the narrative that Iran has no air defenses. It has, it's weak, it's not capable of defending itself. It is vulnerable, staggeringly vulnerable.

It's naked. Well, we know that that is not true according to the record. They have better air defenses than the United States has. I wanna play president. I wanna play president Trump on this very topic, Alastair, on Good Friday, so just three days Alistair, on Good Friday. So just three days ago.

Chris, cut number three. On Iran, would you be open to letting Iran keep some kind of civil nuclear program? Or would the entire program need to be dismantled? I'm for stopping Iran, very simply, from having a nuclear weapon. They can't have a nuclear weapon. I want Iran to be great and prosperous and terrific. With Iran, with Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon. And if they have a nuclear weapon, you'll all be very unhappy.

You'll all be very unhappy. Because your life will be a great day. Do comments like that move the ball, so to speak? Do they help negotiating or are they just intended to gin up his base here? I think it is for the domestic American audience, particularly the Hawks, who are part of his team. That is the key thing. We know the team is divided. We know that Witkoff is rather isolated here on this issue as he is on Ukraine. And so I have a nuclear program, if you go back, why it's so neurologic for the Iranians, is because I remember at the time,

just before the deal was being agreed in 2015, I went and talked to the Iranian national, some of the colleagues, National Security Council, and I said to them, you know, the biggest problem in this whole of getting to a deal was the fact that the Rand Organization, which was regarded as being the authority on nuclear war and matters nuclear at that time.

And there was one man, I forget his name now, but he was sort of dominant in this. And he held in Washington the view that any enrichment automatically meant the path to a weapon. It was impossible to say here is a stop, here is a limit, here is a cap, because once you start down the road to enrichment, he said the automatic process takes you through to a weapon. And there's no way you can really stop that in a physical sense. And so that was dominant at the time. And then when we hear Witkoff going back

and saying that same language, that enrichment must be eliminated. And also when we hear talk about the missiles, because this is the second half of it is they mustn't have a delivery system for a weapon. They cannot have the weapon and they cannot have the path to a weapon, which is in Richmond, and then the weapon system. And what Iran says quite straightforwardly on this, and they say, look, you know, we've had two of these meetings where we just have set out the headings of some headings of discussion. We have no idea what and if America is going to

introduce, you know, another demand that they've got to know our missile system and have to have monitoring in case we should move towards having a missile system that's capable of delivering a web. So that's why I say that the view is that they have serious doubts and they don't know which way it will go. They know that one part of the team in Washington, Trump's team, you know, wants a neutered Iran. I mean, what does this mean? As I say, you know, he wants, he says he wants to have a new vision for the Middle East industrially co-opt. And it's obviously about the Abraham courts and the idea of having everybody normalize with Israel. Well, what stands out, of course, is Iran. And Iran is a big part, 5,000 year old civilization, you know, against Gulf states that are, you know, 50 years old and don't have that same debt.

Do you find it peculiar, Alastair, that every time President Trump or Secretary Rubio or Secretary Hegsef say the same thing, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, it cannot have a nuclear weapon, no one in the audience says, well, why is it that Israel can? No one ever says that. No one will have the courage to get up and say that. No, they won't say that. And so, you know, what I see, I mean, I'm putting it all together. I do think that there is something in Trump he does have or some sort of idea that he wants to make a revolution, to have a new

world order. But what's happened is the strategic underpinnings to that are not there. When you look at what they produced in Paris, the team in which Kellogg was there, and Witkoff, and Rubio, and they put on a proposal which was ridiculous. I mean, it was just Kellogg was there and Witkoff and Rubio and they put on a proposal which was ridiculous. I mean it was just Kellogg's proposal of April last year and which is quite clearly not acceptable either to Russia or to Ukraine, but certainly not to Russia. I mean, what is the point of that? And then Rubio says, well, you know, you've got a few days left, not months, but a few days. If you don't accept that, we'll walk away. Well, maybe that's what Trump wants. He wants to say, he prefers to disown it and get out and leave it behind.

But then where is this win coming from? Did he need the wind? It's not looking so good on the economic front and the tariff front at the moment. But on the Ukraine, I mean, the proposal from Kellogg is really just not very bright at all. He doesn't seem to be very not very bright at all. He doesn't seem to be very alert to what people are saying. And then in Iran, as I say, the question is, if the best he can do is to go back and say, oh, look what I've done, we're going on our way to agreeing a warmed up Obama JCPOA. There will be a big thumbs down all around Washington and not just a few, it will be the institutional leadership of the Jewish community, but it will also be many Republicans who are not who will say no, we can't, we believe has gone very adverse to allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon. But he's boxed in because the only way of

stopping a nuclear weapon is doing something that it is not imaginable, just to put it very plain, it is not imaginable that we will see Iran, if you like, deconstruct, blow up, dismantle, destroy its centrifuges, which is spent 20 years building. It's not likely they'll ever allow anyone to inspect their missiles. It's not possible that they will allow someone, if you like, to really stop that process. If you say, can we go back to something like the JCPOA, they would say yes, but we want a better one. We want sanctions really removed. It's not going to happen. I think that Trump has, to happen? I think that Trump has, you know, not Trump particularly, but there's not a strategic thinking about where this is going to put the United States in this coming period, where it's going to corner the United States increasingly on undeliverable outcome, which is going to get raspberry across Washington and in Israel particularly, or else it'll have to resort

to some sort of war. And the question there is, I imagine that Gabbard and others know pretty well that, you know, that New York Times hype about Iran having no air defenses is not true. But do they understand just how sophisticated those defenses are, how potent the missile systems Iran has? I hope so, because otherwise they might make some very strategic errors in judgment. Alistair Crook, thank you my dear friend. Fascinating conversation as always. All the best to you. We'll look forward to seeing you again next week. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Of course. Thank you. Coming up later today at 10 o'clock this morning, Ray McGovern. At 1130 this morning, Larry Johnson. At three this afternoon, Scott Ritter. And at four this afternoon from Rome, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. You You