Judging Freedom - Alastair Crooke : What's Next in Trump's War?

Episode Date: July 8, 2025

Alastair Crooke : What's Next in Trump's War?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle III, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the Grandview shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in the supernatural thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series.

Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible.. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, July 7th, 2025. Alistair Crook will be here with us in just a moment on what's next in Trump's wars. But first this. We all know how devastating war is. Lives lost, communities destroyed. But war can also threaten your financial freedom.

That's where America's heading, our growing involvement in global conflicts. It means more spending, more debt, and a weaker dollar. That's a direct hit to your wallet. So here are three things to keep your eyes on. Exploding debt, declining dollar, rising prices of gold and silver. These things are already happening. Goldman Sachs predicts gold could hit $4,500 an ounce

by 2026. Why? Because central banks and smart investors are buying gold hand over fist. They know what's coming and they're hedging against it. Currency collapse, inflation and market volatility. Gold has been a trusted store of value for thousands of years and today we need that protection more than ever. Call Lear Capital now at 800-511-4620 or visit learjudsnap.com. No one is going to protect your wealth for you. You need to do it yourself.

And now is the time. Alistair, welcome here, my dear friend. I guess we're back to Trump's bombing of Iran, Iran nuclear facilities. Was it a smashing success? Was it a PR stunt or was it the prelude to war? It was supposed to be the perfect little war. Trump described it as that. There was Michael Wolfe who was talking to a lot of people, he's written four books on Trump, and his technique is he goes and talks to people whom Trump talks to. And you don't get information from that, and Trump isn't really wanting a conversation, he just says something

like, I mean Israel's winning, aren't they? They're really good, aren't they? And you're supposed to say, hmm, hmm, hmm, yes, Mr. President, and then click, and it's off and then he talks to someone else. But as Michael Wolf says, it's always the same thing. He's asking the same question to every interlocutor. So you're going to feel of what he was looking for and what he was looking for in the attack on Iran.

And he said this, I mean, first of all, with the Israeli attack, because this is important, the Israeli attack, it was quite clear from all of these conversations that Michael Wolff was having that he, you know, this was a joint operation with America, effectively. This was to be the surprise attack on Iran, and it was supposed to collapse the House of Cards, which is the Iranian state.

While the US was negotiating with Iran, correct? While the US, yes, and while the US was negotiating with Iran, correct? While, yes, and while the US was planning on the following Sunday to have a further meeting and a negotiation with Iran. And during that period, I mean, he kept saying, to all of these calls, he said, they're going to win, aren't they? They're going to win. It's going to be a triumph. It's going to be game over. Isn't that right? And it's very clear from this that he thought it was going to be game over. In other words, the House of Cards would collapse in Iran and it would be like Syria.

There would be no government. It would be there would be everything would be immobilized, if you like, the decapitation of the military, the assassination of scientists, and it was a very well planned, I have to say. It obviously took a lot of planning because in a sense that attack on Iran was deceptive because it was not an air attack on Iran as it's been presented. We had freedom of the skies, we flew air, whatever we want was not true at all. What really happened in the attack on Iran, as far as one can get all of the details, was that it was basically a combination of standoff weapons, drones, and covert sabotage,

mounted initially from the Kurdish part. I mean, pre-positioned anti-tank missiles, all prepared. Then Israeli special forces came in to use, if you like, the American software, their spatial mapping, which allows targeting of these missiles, the Israeli Special Forces. It wasn't air delivered. And then the only way in which the aircraft actually came in to Iran was through the north from Syria right up north, which is all mountainous in Iran, very mountainous territory, very hard to get up and ride up, into Azerbaijan airspace. Airspace from Azerbaijan went down to the Caspian directly opposite to Tehran and

where they were firing a new mini cruise missiles, again from a standoff position, not the aircraft going in, but from a standoff position. Now it obviously took a lot of arranging, a lot of preparation, maybe years of preparation, coordination with the Americans to do all this. But what's the point? The point is, once done, you can't repeat it. It wasn't that it showed that Iran was open territory, you could fly in and bomb it to hell.

They didn't prove that at all. It was all done from standoff operations and sabotage internally. People coming in, MEK coming in with little suitcases with drones in it that they assemble and fight off. And Trump was really excited during this period. As Michael Wolf said, he kept saying to people, it's going to be a great victory, isn't it? It's going to be. It's going to be a game changer.

It's going to be a showstopper. I mean, the Israelis are so great, aren't they? So he clearly was expecting it to collapse. And that's the second fundamental point about this whole process was not only did it not collapse, it's actually had the counterproductive effect. It has farred up the Iranian public. The Iranian public are now, it was Assyria yesterday,

and the Iranian public are full of a sort of new fervor and patriotism and support for the soon-freedom labor. They are stronger. The country, the state is now more unified and more, if you like, robust and hard-nosed than it's ever been in this process. So it didn't work. So yes, you know, this plan that obviously so gripped President Trump, he said, it's so good, it's terrific.

It's going to be a game changer. It's going to be wonderful. Actually, it was good tactically. I mean, it was professionally done. Pieces were prepositioned, but it failed strategically. It did not collapse the House of Cards and it's not likely that it's going to now, even less likely, because of Iranian things. How significant, I know the president has his views on this and they don't seem to be connected to the evidence, but how significant a setback to the Iran nuclear facilities, whether it's enrichment or movement toward

a bomb was the American attack? Well, we can't say give you an answer to that categorically. But I think it all the indications are that some damage was sustained, but it hasn't pushed back. And the Iranians say they're pushing ahead with the enrichment program. So why are they saying this? One of the reasons I think they're being very coy, I mean they could come out and say well actually Fordow was pretty well untouched, the whole, and it probably was because there's no, I

the whole. And it probably was because there's no, I mean, I think there are five entrances to Fordow. So they weren't all damaged or blocked off. And they're busy clearing in a lot of work. Why they're saying this, I think they're saying this for this reason, is because they anticipate and it's already happening, that, you know, Macron and all of the Europeans and the Americans too will be pressing to say no the IAEA must go back they've got they have to verify it under the non-proliferation treaty they are required to to to adjudicate and to monitor this. And this is what the West is likely to press Iran for that. And the answer is at the moment, there

is such anger at the IEA and their betrayal of Iran and their passing of information to the Israelis to target all those scientists sitting in their home with their families, killing them overnight. There's such anger that if the IEA did step foot in Iran, they'd need a bodyguard of about 10 people to survive that if they survived at all. I mean, it's over. They're not going to agree to that.

The public is dead against it. But that pressure is coming. So it's quite an advantage to Trump says, look, there's no nuclear program. We destroyed it all obliterated. So Iran can say, well, okay, if that's your position, and that's what you assert, then the IEA are irrelevant. What are they coming for? There's no program for them to monitor.

So you don't need to talk about it. But these are the two things that I think that are going to define the next period. One is the pressure for some form of monitoring through the IEA, which I think Iran already says it will not have the IEA. And Russia is backing them because Russia had its own bad experience from the IEA in terms of Ukraine and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. And it also believes that all of these Western organizations,

like the Organization for the Protection Against Chemical Warfare, the OPCW, was totally an intelligence operation, British intelligence operation. So they're deeply skeptical, too. So there won't be any push from Russia, despite Trump having asked for help to get the IEA back. The Russians are deeply skeptical. But what's going to come for, and this is the key point, just let me make this key point, is that clearly there's pressure mounting in the United States to put a squeeze onto Iran, and the way to do that is they're going to get to the Europeans to do snapback sanctions on Iran under the JCPOA.

They have until October to do it and they said in June they would go the EU3 who are part of the JCPOA said they would definitely do that and that was what that resolution was that if you like pretext for the sneak Israeli attack on Iran on the 13th, the day before the IEA had managed to get a resolution passed saying that Iran was in breach of its undertakings and the JCPOA. So when that happens and they'll say, well, you have to under the MPT have the accept snapback and you have to accept that. I think that's when I think it's almost certain that when Iran leaves the MPT can't do it overnight. It takes about three months, but that's when they'll use the NPT. But then who knows?

None of this will please the man with whom President Trump is having lunch today in the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. He wants Iran to be rendered like Syria or Libya, as you mentioned earlier. Yeah. like Syria or Libya as you mentioned earlier. Yeah, his message is going to be clear to America and it'll be said loudly and with symbols clashing and everything. Oh America, you now have to finish the job. You've got to go in and you've got to finish the job. Well actually, you know, because we did it, they're going to say. You know, we were so successful, it was such a successful operation. Well, I've just indicated it wasn't. It probably didn't destroy the nuclear program.

It didn't destroy Fordow. It didn't even destroy the enriched uranium, which probably this very good, you know, circumstantial evidence that actually the Iranians removed it, they say they did before the, if you like, either 13th or the 22nd of June attacks. So it's still there. And so Israel wants it gone, because, you know, the program will probably be now the Iranians are very clear, supreme leader is clear. We are going to pursue enrichment, full stop. And we're not having the IEA come back. And if you push it to us, push us to it, we'll leave the NPT. Now where that takes us, Now, where that takes us, we will see. But my guess, and this was what was sort of indicated from those discussions that Trump was having with his interlocutors on the telephone, I don't think, you know, the whole idea of the attack

on those three nuclear programs that Trump was planning and thinking about, he was very clear, you know, I want this to be a perfect war. I want this to be in boom out. He kept saying this to people on the phone. It's gonna be in boom out, finish, finish, all done. It will be the perfect war.

It will be beautiful. And it will be a showstopper, headline. It wanted to be the headline we want. We finished off the nuclear program. But it doesn't sound as if he wants a long war. One, he's not very settled in his own views and he's looking for reinforcement from these dozens of people to whom he speaks and he presents the rhetorical questions the people to whom Michael Wolf of Mino and whom I've interviewed many times is speaking.

Two, it also sounds as though he's not prepared for what could very well come next. Which is pressure from Israel and internally for him to do finish the job finish off the job in Iran. But what does finish off mean? And this is the key point because, you know, people use that term rather loosely, but in the Israeli understanding of it, the only way that definitively finishes or the nuclear program or the threat from Iran is to change the regime and to install a Western puppet government in Tehran. And I don't think, I mean first of all, and this was a point that Michael Wolf made repeatedly, you know apart from how Iran responds, the key thing is

how does the Maghreb respond to him? Because already you know this pushback from the MAGA, you know, the two key issues in the elections was immigration and forever wars. And the MAGA don't want more wars, particularly Middle Eastern wars. And you hear that all the time, Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon and others are pretty clear, but MAGA doesn't want it.

And the point is that, you know, at things stand, you know, Trump is pretty weak in terms of his hold on the Senate and the House. He's got a majority of three in each, I think, something like that. And that, you know, in the midterms could start many of those. I mean, it's not just the MAGA because the latest polls are showing also that many of the young people, former Democratic voters, if you like, Biden voters, also voted Trump because he promised peace and no wars. And they're starting to drift away. So I mean this

is hugely dangerous for the midterms. I mean because it opens all sorts of things losing the house and losing it you know this better than me but we could be back to impeachment and other things like that if we go if they lose that. So he must be worried. So when anything people say, oh, now come in now do finish off, we've got to finish off Iran. Iran emerged from that much stronger than people were. They didn't touch their most advanced weapons. Most of us was and they completely,

Israel was attacked as it's never been attacked before. We know now from satellite visions that many military bases were attacked as well as others like the headquarters. I mean and also that the air defenses of Israel did not work. 93 fansands were fired, which cost a total of about 1.2 billion during those 11 days of the American missiles trying to defend Israel from it. Not very successful, not at all successful. A side, difficult decision facing. Aside from the PR benefits back home of a meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office and maybe even taking questions from the press, what do you think Netanyahu is really trying to accomplish today? What does he want?

What is he saying behind closed doors? You have to attack again? You've got to bring about regime change, he's not going to be patient enough to expect and wait for European sanctions to kick in? They won't come. They're sanctions are a dead letter now in Europe. But I think what he's saying apart from, I think the most important thing that we're going to see in today, apart from him saying finish the job in Iran, will be about the new Middle East. And I think this refers to Trump's vision.

What Trump sees, and he imagines maybe, but this is how he sees the world, that there is a chastened Iran that now is forced just to watch what happens in the Middle East from the sidelines as a new Middle East is created. A new Middle East centered on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, not on Iran, Tehran or Riyadh, but on Tel Aviv and on Jerusalem. And now it will be a region that is forced to reckon that the whole plain field of the Middle East is centered on Tel Aviv, with Israel relegating the Palestinians to an afterthought. And all of this is supposed to incentivize, you know, Arab states to join the Abraham Accords.

But the purpose behind all this, why it matters so much to Trump, we have to get back to the economic thing because ultimately what that does in his view, Trump's view, it opens a vista of resource and trade deals across the whole Middle East and from the Middle East stretching into Southeast Asia, resources, trade deals, business, big money.

And that's what it's really, I think, his vision. And that's what he wants to talk to Netanyahu about, how to bring this about. The thing is, I think it's going to be more troublesome and more difficult than people, commentators expect because in all of those areas, I mean, it is problematic. In Syria, which Dave Witkoff is touted as likely to join the Ibrahim Ak-Khoth. I mean, the Syrians are very divided and they're saying, oh no, but we've got to have at least a third or if not two thirds of the Golan return to Syria.

We can't sell it to Syrians unless we get part of the Golan before. And what's more, we want to annex north of Lebanon with up to Tripoli. We want the Northern, which is a very hardline Sunni area. We want that as part of Syria because we want access to the Mediterranean. I don't think that's doable.

And then in Lebanon, the Hezbollah has just announced, no, we refuse the American plan for the disarming of Hezbollah. It's refused. Point blank, it was announced yesterday and so it's likely there's going to be a resumption of war. Israel will probably try and occupy South Lebanon again. So and I don't think that Saudi is going to be attracted or any other Arab state because the problem is Gaza is not resolved even now for all the sort of narrative about with on the verge it's very simple

because Netanyahu will not shift off a 60-day ceasefire and a piecemeal approach and the army is staying and Hamas is sticking on that position that they've always had, which is this has got to be an end to war and a withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Gaza and the reconstruction of Gaza, the Strip. And the two sides are still far apart. I just want to play for you, you probably know this gentleman, Professor Paolo Nobiera, who is the former executive director of the International Monetary Fund. Very interesting clip over the weekend of the very important role Iran plays in BRICS, which is something that's troubling the president

of the United States. Chris, cut number six. Iran is not only a very important country by itself in all respects, but it is a link between Russia and India. It is the link, possible link between Middle East oil and China bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. So Iran is strategically very important. And that perhaps is in the minds of Americans and Israelis when they are permanently hostile

to Iran. Now, Iran should have had an atomic bomb a long time ago in my opinion. This is deterrence acting. Iran failed to do that. Try to cooperate. Now it has learned a lesson, I presume, and will go for a full-scale nuclear program in my opinion. Let's see. For a full-scale nuclear program in my opinion, what do you think? for a full-scale nuclear program, in my opinion. What do you think? Well, I think that most of what he said, I mean, the nuclear program, we have to wait and see. They've got to leave the NPT first.

But he's left out something very important. It's not just the corridors. It's not just bricks. Iran provides the security to the underbelly of Russia, the Caucasus, Azerbaijan, Armenia, all of the Caucasus. Iran is a vital component to the security and so Russia is very much concerned that nothing should happen to Iran and it shouldn't fall into the western camp and then be part of the sort of firing up of problems which are already happening in the Caucasus and in places like Azerbaijan.

I think it'll be managed. Russia will sit on Aliyah very shortly if the Iranians haven't already done it. But I mean this is something that is as important to them as also the North South corridor, the East West corridor and Iran as a huge resource country. Second largest gas resources in the world. Third largest oil company. I mean, this is what Trump's after, obviously. This bigger thing, the revenues from sort of being able to, if you like, making trade deals across the Middle East and Asia because Iran has come into the Western fold. All of that will, because all of this will bring in the dollars, he hopes, but it's so fragile. And as I say, I mean, first of all, on the Iran thing,

I think it's highly unlikely that he will actually go down the route of an attrition against a long war against Iran. I think, as Michael Wolf said, and he has it exactly right, I don't think Trump has the attention span for that. We've seen it already with Ukraine. He's getting tired of that. And I don't think he's got the attention span for that. But then I don't think that Nanyahu can deliver what Trump wants of a new Middle East where everyone is aligned, everyone is joining the Ibram, the courts. In fact, you know, what are we here?

And of course, there's exceptions to this. I'm not saying that it's across the board, but I think many Gulf states are actually very unsettled. But they see Israel is out of control. It's not an advantage to the Gulf states now. It's not a security element in their thinking, which it was at one stage. Ten years ago, it was thinking that Israel there and America was a sort of security. Now they see this as a wild card that could go anywhere, that Israel too is out of control and Trump, they don't know what is going to happen with that. So I mean, I think they I mean, you know, in this sense, you know, for them, Iran is becoming a security component for them, becoming something that's important. They've got good relations with Iran, and I think they will keep them through this.

And they will say to to to to Trump very clearly, we think it's a very bad idea, not least because if something happens to the Hormuz Strait, that we have also Iran restricting the traffic through the Hormuz Strait. I mean, we're in deep trouble, so don't go and worsen the war with Iran and don't let Israel do it either. Alistair Crooke, thank you very much, my dear friend. Much appreciated. Thank you for your thoughts. We'll look forward to seeing you next week.

Thank you. Thank you, Judge. Of course. Thank you. And coming up later today, Monday, at 10 o'clock this morning, Ray McGovern from Germany at 1130 this morning, Larry Johnson at one this afternoon, Scott Ritter at two this afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Josh Napolitano for Judging Freedom. you