Judging Freedom - AMB. Charles Freeman: How Long Can Iran Wait?

Episode Date: August 15, 2024

AMB. Charles Freeman: How Long Can Iran Wait?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 Thursday, excuse me, August 15th, 2024, Ambassador Charles Freeman joins us now. Ambassador, I would like to talk to you in some length about the likely Iranian response to the Israeli assassinations and prevail upon your expertise and experience as a former Assistant Secretary of Defense as to what the United States is likely to do. But before we get there to hotter and more recent events, some outfit that I don't know of called TF Global is reporting this morning that General Sersky, the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian military, is about to resign and to encourage his troops to lay down their arms. And that, of course,

would end the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Can you enlighten us at all as to whether this is probable or whether you've heard this or how this might happen? Well, I hadn't heard it. It's not implausible, however, given the difficulties Ukraine is in. And the Kursk incursion bears all the earmarks of a politically directed, militarily very risky adventure. From a political point of view, it obviously bucks up Ukrainian morale, which has been badly damaged by the huge losses that Ukraine has taken. It shows Ukraine's foreign backers, United States, NATO, countries in Europe that support Ukraine, that Ukraine can still hurt Russia, which is the stated objective of this war on our side,

not saving Ukraine, but isolating and weakening Russia. And third, it may take some territory for a while anyway, which could be a useful bargaining chip if negotiations actually now take place. The problem with it is that from a military point of view, it's a very risky throw of the dice. It's very unlikely that those troops who went in there, who are Ukraine's best, equipped with its best equipment from the West, are ever going to come out alive. And therefore, the holding of territory is likely to be ephemeral. politically brilliant but militarily idiotic exercise had been forced on me, I might well think about resigning. And I think that there is every reason for the Ukrainian Armed Forces

who have behaved valiantly to have serious doubts about their political leadership at this point. So I certainly hadn't heard that, as I said, but I don't find it entirely implausible. Ambassador, who invaded Russia? Was it NATO or was it just Ukraine? I think it was Ukraine with mercenaries from various European countries and some Americans. The Russians have reported hearing communications in American accented English. There's certainly French mercenaries in there. I think it's very hard to

tell. But, you know, many people outside the region where people have ground truth continue to be duped by the massive information warfare we've conducted you know ukraine's just about to win the f-16s have arrived and they're going to turn the battle around the way the abram abram's a a2 tank was going to do it. That didn't work. F-16s are not going to work. You know, basically, this is a terrible war, hugely consumptive of human life on both sides, but the Ukrainians have had the disadvantage, and there have been no casualty reports at all about Ukraine. The one that was released by Fond du Léon of the EU way back when was immediately repudiated and she was charged with letting a secret out. So we started this war basically on the assumption that we could hurt Russia by using Ukraine to do so. I say we started this war.

I mean, I'm talking about the response to Kurt Putin's use of force against Ukraine. We had no war termination strategy. There's no clear objective for it, no strategy. And we got into this on the assumption that we could fight to the last Ukrainian. And some of the people in our political establishment were injudicious enough to say so. But Ukraine has basically run out of Ukrainians, and so have we. Here are two of those injudicious members of our political establishment, a liberal Democrat from

Connecticut and a conservative Republican from, you guessed it, South Carolina, whose voting records don't coincide in anything except war. Chris, Senator Blumenthal first, and then Senator Graham. You're fighting our fight, the independence and freedom of people around the world, including the United States. But we want the American people to appreciate the value of this alliance. So two and a half years later, you're still standing and you're in Russia. Remind me not to invade Ukraine. I'm so proud of you, your people,

your military, your leadership, your country. You're under siege, unlike anything I've seen in my lifetime. They were predicting in Washington that Kiev would fall in four days, the whole country fall in three weeks. Well, they were wrong. Other than reminding us of the existence, prominence, and power of the UNIPARTY, the war party in Congress, what do you think of what these two gentlemen just said? Well, Blumenthal tries to frame the matter in the manner of the Biden administration, which is a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. But Ukraine is a country that has suspended its elections. Its president, Mr. Zelensky, is well past his term in office.

The political parties other than his establishment have all been banned. The independent media have been nationalized. The Russian Orthodox Church has been banned. This is not a democracy. And if we're defending freedom, it basically just means defending a country in Europe against an invasion. remember, and Senator Graham reminded of this in effect, that in the run-up to this war, Russia, which had for decades been warning that it would act militarily if forced to do so, put forward a demand for a negotiation, which we rejected. We refused to talk, leaving Russia with no alternative in its mind except

to use force, which it did. Oddly, at that time, we predicted Russia would use force. At the same time as we pooh-poohed internally, we said, well, they wouldn't dare. They wouldn't dare and they're incompetent and they'll be easily defeated. There's some question about what the famous halted column on the route to Kiev was about. Some military experts have argued that it was an effort to pin down Ukrainian forces so they couldn't go to the Donetsk and Luhansk regions where Russia had joined separatists openly on the battlefield. Some thought it was, as portrayed, a serious effort to take Kiev. I don't know what the answer is, but basically,

Senator Graham, chargling gleefully about the fact that Russia's now been invaded, is mouthing the war talk in Washington. All very consistent. Do you think that the entire invasion could possibly have come about without assistance from CIA and MI6? Second half of that question, isn't the, I forget what the initials are, SBK maybe, the Ukrainian intelligence service totally subservient to and dependent upon CIA and MI6? The relationship is incestuous. I'm not sure who's dependent on whom. It is incestuous and it is frankly very difficult to believe that our intelligence agencies were not involved in providing the key information to facilitate this surprise attack against a very poorly, almost undefended part of Russia.

This is, as I said, you know, you shouldn't do something on the battlefield unless you figure out how are you going to get out of it with a gain. I don't see how Ukraine comes out of this with a gain. I think it's more likely to be humiliated, and that might tie back to the story that you cited at the beginning of this conversation, to the effect that Sersky's threatened to resign and take his troops with him. Transitioning to Israel, Gaza, and Iran, can you explain the delay between the most recent of the Israeli assassinations in Iran. I mean, we talk about this one in Tehran because of the way that Mossad boasted about it, claiming the bomb had been there for a couple of months when an eyewitness says, no, a missile hit the building. And we talk about it because the person killed was the chief Hamas negotiator, but this is only the last of the

Israeli assassinations in Iran, even in Tehran, the capital of Iran. Can you justify militarily, diplomatically, or even philosophically the delay between this last assassination and today, during which there's been no retaliation? I wouldn't try to justify it, but I can explain it. Please. It is very clear that this is a complex situation, policy choices for both Iran and Hezbollah and the remainder of the so-called resistance,

meaning the Houthis, Iraqi militias, the Syrians, and others. A very complex decision because they know that the reason Mr. Netanyahu pulled off, did this very provocative set of assassinations in South Beirut and in Tehran, calculated to be maximally insulting to the two regimes concerned, is to widen the war. He wanted an Iranian reaction and an Hezbollah attack so that he could get the United States into a war with Israel's enemies, which he's been trying to do for decades. So it's not surprising in this circumstance, faced with the possibility of getting into a war with the U.S. that neither of them want, that Iran and Hezbollah would both take their time to deliberate and

coordinate. And here I want to speculate on something. There is a classic Chinese military aphorism which may apply. Because war depends on surprise, and most often that depends on deception. And so the Chinese aphorism is no repetition of a winning move. In other words, if you've done it before and it worked, don't do it again because the other side will be prepared for it. So I don't think it's very likely we're going to see a repetition of the April 1st drone cruise missile and hypersonic ballistic missile attack on Israel. That would bring the United States maybe into the war,

which they don't want to do. And I think it's much more likely, therefore, that they will retaliate. Their reprisal will take the form of symmetric proportionate response. And what is that? Assassinations. Now, Iran has been subject to multiple assassinations, as you mentioned. And the best book on the Israeli policy of assassinating people, which goes back to before Israeli independence, documents about 3,000 political murders by the Israeli establishment. And up to now, both Hezbollah and Iran have refrained from answering in kind, I think for multiple reasons, one of which is religious scruples. Believe it or not, people who believehran and in Beirut.

Second reason is practical. They know that the Israelis always retaliate in an unproportionate fashion and the risk has been thought to be too high. But under these circumstances, I think that red line or those red lines may have been crossed. Very interesting. If there is retaliation and if it's more massive and less surgical than you've just suggested. Can you inform us of what tools are available to the Iranians that were recently delivered by Moscow? My understanding, which is not that well informed of what I've heard, is that the deliveries had to do with electronic warfare, that is equipment to fox out the GPS system and other components of an attack on Iran by either

Israel or the United States, and that it also included missile defenses against an attack. So what we have managed to do by maximum pressure on Iran, repudiating the UN Security Council approved JCPOA, the nuclear deal, and putting pressure simultaneously on Russia and China is to draw the Russians and the Iranians into close cooperation, where Iran has supplied Russia with increasing numbers of drones and other means of attacking Ukrainian forces, and Russia has reciprocated by upping its military support for Iran. One complication here. Nobody except Mr. Netanyahu and the other Yahoos around him wants a wider war. So, Mr. Shoigu, Sergei Shoigu, the national security advisor in Moscow, went to Tehran not only accompanied by weapons deliveries, but also with a letter from President Putin

offering his services as a mediator between Tehran and Israel, between Iran and Israel. And Russia can do this because unlike the United States, it very sensibly maintains contact with everyone. We shun people, ostracize them, and thereby make ourselves diplomatically irrelevant, leaving ourselves with nothing but a military means of signaling our intent or our opposition to potential action by an adversary and being unable to play any role in peacemaking. Ambassador, does Iran have nuclear weapons? Well, the intelligence agency will say that it doesn't. And I believe the latest findings by the intelligence community, both in Israel and here, confirm that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program.

What it does have is an enrichment program, which could enable it to become, to go nuclear on a fairly rapid basis. So it is like Japan. It is a latent nuclear power. But again, the religious factor is important here. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, confronted with chemical warfare from Iraq, from Saddam Hussein, repeatedly petitioned the Iranian leadership to be allowed to develop chemical weapons to counter Iraq. And it was turned down. There was a fatwa, a religious declaration, saying that it was haram, it was illegal, it was forbidden in Islam to have weapons of mass destruction. And that fatwa stands.

So we are pushing Iran closer and closer to setting that aside, but there's no evidence that it has yet. If Hezbollah and Israel get into a major confrontation, and Iran aids Hezbollah, and Russia aids Iran, and the United States aids Israel, are we in another proxy war of the U.S. against Russia? Well, we could be. I think it's important to note here that Hezbollah has its own calculations and its own autonomy. It is supported by Iran, it is used by Iran, but it is an independent actor, much as the Houthis are. And so the likelihood that there would be a coordinated, you know, the worst scenario, of course, is as you suggest, that Iran, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraqi militias simultaneously attack Israel, in which case we're in a major war that neither the United States nor Russia should want. And it's conceivable that the Russians could get dragged into that.

It's pretty likely that we would be, and it would be horrendous. Of what would the American assistance consist in that type of war? Surely not 5,000 Marines on the ground. I suspect not. But, you know, we've deployed a major flotilla, a naval flotilla, just off the shores of Israel and Lebanon. It includes submarines that can fire Tomahawk missiles at targets in the region. It would be an all-out air and naval attack on Hezbollah. It could extend to Iran. And here, let us remember that back in April 1st, when Iran retaliated against the Israeli murder of a senior officer in their embassy in Damascus and blew up part of that embassy. When Iran retaliated, it did so with utmost caution and restraint. It gave the United

States 72 hours warning, and it said that it was not intending to kill anyone. And it started the attack with a slow six-hour flight of drones from Iran, obsolete drones from Iran, followed that up with cruise missiles, fired to land about the same time as the drones, and then sent a few hypersonic missiles to very specific military targets in Israel. It went out of its way to signal that it was not interested in a wider war. I'm not sure that is the case anymore. You know, it's hard to imagine a greater insult to Iranian honor than the assassination of the leader of the hostage negotiations with Israel, as a state guest in a state guest house during the Iranian presidential inauguration.

In the Iranian capital. In the Iranian capital. So I'm not sure where the restraint factor is, and the statements coming out of both Tehran and Beirut are pretty belligerent. Prime Minister Netanyahu, he hasn't been seen in 12 days. Might he perceive himself as a target for assassination along the lines of the no repetition of a winning move suggestion that Iran might use different tactics this time around. He's apparently in a bunker,

which suggests that he does fear for his life. Whether he fears for his life from the Iranians or Hezbollah or Hamas or some other external cause or from Israelis is not clear. You know, Israel has a history of assassinating leaders that various factions in its government offend. So, for example, we had the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin by a right-wing extremist. The question, Israel is now split every which way.

The ultra-Orthodox are resisting conscription. The military are openly deriding the Prime Minister for lack of a strategy and demanding a ceasefire. The intelligence services are discontented and disgruntled. The hostage families are upset by Mr. Netanyahu's clear lack of interest in a serious negotiation to obtain their release. The settlers are on the rampage in the West Bank. And the world is alienated. Israel has now become such a pariah that it is almost universally regarded as the quintessentially evil state, a terrorist state that conducts terror against the people that it controls, rules by terror, and that applies terror as a mechanism for deterrence of its neighbors, and it has no interest in making peace with the indigenous Palestinian population or making a peace with its neighbors. Every single peace that Israel has gained has been the result of an American initiative. That was the case with the Camp David Accords. It's the case with Jordan.

It was the case with the Oslo Agreements. It was the case with the so-called Abraham Accords. Israel has never put forward a single proposal for peace. Why? Because it wants land, not peace. Even the New York Times admitted or acknowledged, it wasn't an admission, stated two days ago on the front page that Netanyahu keeps upping the ante. Once there's an agreement on the table, the Israelis demand more. He doesn't want a ceasefire, does he? Because he knows if there's a ceasefire, the right-wing extremists in his government will leave the government and he won't have a government. Yeah, that is correct. A good deal of what's going on has to do with his egocentric protection of himself from criminal charges for corruption, which he would face the instant he lost his

immunity as prime minister. But I think, you know, here we have to admit that the U.S. is now negotiating in Qatar, in Doha, with the Israelis only. The Palestinians have suspended their participation in hostage negotiations for precisely the reason you mentioned. That is, every time there is an agreement, the Israelis come back with additional terms. Every time there is an agreement, the Israelis insist on the right not only to not release Palestinian hostages whom they hold in the many thousands, but to resume the war in Gaza at their will, whenever they want. So basically the Israelis are asking for Hamas to give up its only leverage, which is the hostages, in return for absolutely nothing. And to add insult to injury, Israel has consistently said that it planned to murder, assassinate all of the leadership of Hamas, regardless of how the negotiations turned out.

Well, this is an offer that it's pretty easy to refuse. You mentioned the negotiations in Doha. On August 13th, which is two days ago, one of the right-wing extremists, Itamar Ben-Gavir, the rough equivalent of the head of the FBI in Israel, led a few thousand right-wing extremists into the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a place that you know is designated by law for Islamic worship only.

He stopped to talk to the camera and in those comments said, we shouldn't even be in Doha or Cairo. Chris, cut number 10. We are at the Temple Mount on Tisha B'Av. Today we commemorate the destruction of the temple, but we must also honestly acknowledge that there is significant progress here regarding the governance and sovereignty. The sight of Jews praying, as I said, our policy is to permit prayer. But I'll say something else. We must win this war. We must win. Not go to summits in Doha or in Cairo.

But defeat them. Bring them to their knees. That's the message. We can defeat Hamas, bring it to its knees. Now, I suggest to you that the intended recipient of that message was not the Israeli public or the American public or even the network that the camera person works for, but Benjamin Netanyahu. Very likely. And it is an indication of the disunity of this cabinet. It's also an indication of what we're up against. The same man, Mr. Ben-Gvir, watched a live stream sodomization of a Palestinian prisoner. Israel TV has had an open debate about whether it is appropriate to sodomize prisoners and concluded, yes, it is. The majority agree. So what we're dealing with is a government

that is a sociopathic government. And Mr. Ben-Gavir is the chief sociopath, although there are others. Ambassador Freeman, thank you for your time. No matter what we talk about, it's a privilege to be able to pick your brain. Much appreciated, my dear friend. I hope you can come back and visit with us again next week. Hope you can pick a better topic, a happier topic. Can we find something that's happy these days? If you come across such a topic, please let us know. Okay. Thank you, Ambassador. Pleasure to be able to speak with him. Coming up later today at three o'clock Eastern this afternoon, Professor John Mearsheimer. And at five o'clock Eastern this afternoon, always at the end of the day and always worth waiting for, Max Blumenthal. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. I'm out.