Judging Freedom - AMB. Chas Freeman : New Middle East Alliance a Threat to Israel

Episode Date: August 11, 2026

AMB. Chas Freeman : New Middle East Alliance a Threat to IsraelSee 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 preemptive 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? the government? What if 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 Tuesday, August 11th, 2006. Ambassador Chas Freeman will be here with us in just a moment. Why the new Middle East Alliance is a potential threat to Israel. But first this. You know, a few years ago, if you told people you were stocking up on emergency food, they would have thought you were crazy. Not anymore. We've all seen supply chain chaos, devastating natural disasters, inflation, war, and civil unrest, and preparedness has now gone mainstream. That's why we're partnering with my Patriot, supply, America's original Patriot Preparedness Company. Right now, they're celebrating America's 250th birthday with one of the best deals they've ever offered. Two hundred and fifty dollars off

their bestselling six-month emergency food supply available now at prepare with the judge.com. This is the exact same survival plan trusted by over three million American families because they deliver 2,000 calories a day. Their food lasts up to 25 years without refrigeration. and it contains no GMOs or artificial colors or flavors. Even at full price, it's still the best decision you'll make for your family. With this $250 discount, it's a no-brainer. Go to preparewithadjudge.com to get your emergency food kit today. That's preparewithajudge.com.

Pastor Freeman, welcome here, my friend. Yesterday I was interviewed on TAS, the Russian, government official media organ by a retired Russian general. And he told me point blank that the Russians believe themselves to be at war with the United States. Where does the United States stand today in the special military operation in Ukraine? Well, we've handed the bag officially to the Europeans, but we remain deeply engaged. our intelligence that enables the Ukrainians to target places that are deep inside Russia. We have facilitated a Ukrainian really quite desperate escalation to deep strikes in Russia

in the hope that this will weaken the Russian advances on the battlefield, which are slow and steady. And it's on the other hand, We have depleted our weapons supplies to such an extent that the Europeans don't find anything they can buy in the United States to transfer to the Ukrainians. And that is contributing to the really increasing the desperate cries of President Zelensky for a ceasefire with the Russians, because he can see the handwriting, the writing is on the wall for Ukraine. But from the Russian point of view, from the very beginning, what has been at stake in Ukraine is the attempted incorporation by the United States of Ukraine into an American sphere of influence, the positioning of American weapons on Ukrainian territory aimed at Russia,

an increased probability that weapons stationed in Ukraine could provide the basis for a decapitating strike on Moscow. And sadly, the Ukrainian escalation, aided and abetted by us and the Europeans, especially the British, is validating the Russian argument that Ukraine is an intolerable security threat to Russia because it can be used to wreak devastation in Russia, as it has been used now for almost five years. Did the, even though President Putin once spent five hours with Whitkoff and Kushner, did the Russians ever take seriously the idea of negotiations by real estate agents who were not experienced, trained or educated diplomats, negotiations by a co-belligerent claiming it's a mediator?

Well, I think the latter point is a very, very, very, important one. You can't mediate a fight in which you are yourself engaged. I don't think Whitkoff and Kushner themselves had any credibility. But from the Russian perspective, they had a direct line to President Trump, and then the Russians understand that the United States no longer has a policy process worthy of the name. All decisions are made by President Trump, personally, in the company of sycophants who will not challenge his often very deluded views of reality. So why not take a chance on the Kushner and Witkoff being able to persuade Donald Trump to call off the proxy war before it becomes a real one?

Wow. Wow. Was this general correct that the United States is a co-belligerent? Oh, I don't think there's any way we can avoid that conclusion legally. We are a co-belligerent, and so are the European members of NATO. So we hear cries from some of them, ironically, those who are most exposed to Russian retaliation in the Baltics, demanding all kinds of actions against the Russian state, aimed at bringing it down, breaking it up, subjugating it, intimidating it, and so forth and so on. You know, there is warfare between the United States and Russia. First, a proxy war, the arming and reorganization of the Ukrainian army to a level of 780,000 men, the largest armed force in Europe other than Turkey, up till the Russian ultimatum

of December 2021. The subsequent supply of all kinds of of first-class weaponry the best we have everything, but tomahawks and nuclear weapons pretty much to Ukraine. Russia has been able to counter those weapons systems with increasing speed and effectiveness, but they have killed Russians. And that is, there's no way we can deny that we are in a state of war with Russia, even if most of its important components are now economic sanctions, economic warfare, and information warfare, in which propaganda replaces truth. So, yes, the Russians are correct.

The United States is not just an adversary, we are an active enemy of the Russian state. Has there been any meaningful improvement in American-Russian relationships under the Trump administration from the Biden? administration. I know that from time to time, Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary of State Rubio will speak to each other. Of course, Tony Blinken famously or infamously, never spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov in the second, third, and fourth years of President Biden's presidency. but you know the enormous U.S. embassy in Moscow. It's empty, empty. Maybe there's a half dozen people there, but it holds thousands.

No, I think, well, at least, as you point out, the Trump administration is not afraid to conduct a dialogue with the Russians, even if it does so with remarkable ineffectiveness. Basically, the problem is that the United States, has completely lost the trust of the world, not just Russia. Nobody believes our envoys, whether they're amateur or on the rare and rarely now these days professional, speak for the state. They speak for Donald Trump, if at all.

And Donald Trump has a habit of changing his mind. He has a habit of reaching agreements and then retroactively inserting other conditions. at the request of Benjamin Netanyahu or someone, the Europeans, perhaps in the case of Russia. And he is inconstant to the point of being totally untrustworthy. So therefore, you can have a dialogue, but it doesn't get anywhere. I want to move to Iran and Hormuz, but before we do, I want you to hear what the president said yesterday. I think it's nonsense, but you might have a different view. Chris, cut number one.

Well, it's open now. We're taking a lot of shit. It's open now. Look, the only one that has control of the Strait of Hamos right now is the United States Navy. We have a blockade that's been infallible. It's a steel wall. And we let people in that we want to let in. And those people come in and they've been coming in and they're going out.

So it's actually open now. We do not let them go into Iran. to not admit it into the strait to go to Iran. Is there any risk in that whatsoever? No. I wonder, is he insane? Can he believe, imagine anybody believes that? There are five to ten ships a day transiting the Strait of Hormuz and what is required, according to the Bank of America's study recently,

to bring oil prices back under control. control and avoid their creeping up or maybe shooting up is 10 times at that level of traffic. That is something like 80 or 100 ships a day. That is not happening. The second point, Donald Trump claiming that we control the state of our moves, first is not true, but it's essentially telling the world that they are suffering from an oil embargo because of the United States Navy. And underneath this, there is a reality that he does not acknowledge,

which is contemptuous of American members of the military. The ships that are conducting this brocade, not infallibly, as he claims, are having severe equipment breakdowns. The food supplies for the sailors aboard are inadequate, and there are no personal amenities or necessities available in the ship's stores, apparently. The wear and tear on the ships and the men and women aboard them is becoming intolerable. And yet he doesn't seem to recognize this at all. And this is typical of the lack of empathy that has governed his approach to world affairs.

it's really sad to see it govern his approach to the U.S. military. And one wonders whether Mr. Hegsseth, the self-proclaimed Secretary of War, ever has the guts to tell Donald Trump reality or even to recognize it himself. He's so pumped up with false narratives. Agreed. What available goals? goals remain for Trump to achieve with his war, if any? No, no, he's basically contrived a situation in which there can be no military advance.

We've tried that. It doesn't work. And there can be no political retreat. And therefore, what he's done now is try to keep this issue out of the headlines and therefore sort of buried in the public psyche. That is very unlikely to work because this war has consequences that reach the world and the American consumer, American citizens, experiencing supply shortages. Diesel and jet fuel are in great jeopardy, and oil prices, gasoline prices, have not receded to the level that they were before this foolish attack on Iran. So he's stuck, and his usual response to getting stuck is to deny that he's stuck, to make up stories that suggest he's succeeding somehow, and to hope that he can find enough fools to believe that.

But I think he's run out of fools. You know, if you know him personally, you know that he has a very short attention span, and he's very impatient. I wonder if a recent headline in, well, recent, today's New York Times is right. He's losing interest in the war in Iran, but it won't let go of him. That sounds right. Yeah. What do we know of the Saudi, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkey defense agreement announced over the weekend. And why is it that the Israelis are not happy about this?

Well, I think we should be unhappy about it, frankly, because it is happening. What they've done, they're not seeking divorce from the United States. All of them have productive relations with us, and they don't want to lose those. But they are now striking out on their own. This is a declaration that they no longer have any confidence in American leadership, that They need to separate themselves and develop hedge in effect against American actions that are backed by no strategic plan whatsoever, like the war in Iran. But it's more than that. It's also an effort to build a cooperative council.

Turkey has made it clear, I think, and the others appear to agree that others in the region will be free to join this. and it involves the exchange of intelligence, and it involves the development of military industries on a common basis. Interestingly, Egypt, which was part of the four-party consultative group that was dealing with the war in Iran, has a consultative relationship with this new alliance. But it does not, it is a very,

is not a member of it. And I think that's because Egyptian interests are quite different from those of the other three countries. And they are very much focused on counterbalancing Israel and Iran, apparently. So this is something, they don't want to be under Israeli control. They don't want the West Asian region to be under Israeli control. They also don't want it to be under Iranian control.

And they don't see the United States anymore as a counter to those two possibilities. We seem to back Israeli ambitions to control the region. Our opposition to Iran's ambitions have been ineffective and very damaging to them. So they are in a situation. I think I read stuff in the press that says that, well, you know, we've come down to a moment when both Iran and the United States harbor the the view that if we can just hang on long enough, the other will suffer such grave economic damage that it will capitulate.

The Iranians clearly calculate that they have the United States in such a position, and they are patient, and they are not going to give up their control of the Strait of Hormuz, or refrain from threatening future attacks on. on any ally of the United States, whether it's Israel or the Gulf Arabs, as long as they believe that the pain that we will suffer, our suffering will mount, as a political pain on the president,

will increase that the midterms will produce a disaster for him, that the United States will be put in a position where it has to rethink this whole debacle and start anew, And except, in fact, if not at a negotiating table, the conditions that we agreed to back in the memorandum of understanding. So the Iranian position is they will not talk to us until we implement our undertakings in the memorandum of understanding.

Now I see headlines saying, well, the Iranians put forward new demands. Not so. They are demanding that we do what we said we would do. Perhaps we shouldn't have said that. But in any event, we did. And the American side, basically Donald Trump is down to, well, we'll just keep the pressure up on them and eventually they'll crack. But, you know, we've had the pressure on them for how many decades, five more? And have they cracked?

No. So I think this is not a pretty picture from the point of view of American interests. Back to the Saudi-Pakistan, Turkey, by the way, have they changed the spelling or the pronunciation of the country of Turkey? What they've done is, since they used the Latin alphabet, they gave up the Arabic script at the beginning of the last century. They are now asking that everybody used their spelling for their own country. and so you have T, U with an umlaude R-I-E, which is, I guess, how it's Tudkia, which is how it's pronounced in Turkish, I guess. And that's what they want everybody else to use,

and some are capitulating and some are not. Is the R silent? No. T. It's an R in there, but it's not a California R. Thank God. But back to this, Turkey, Saudi, Pakistan defense agreement. Is this like Article 5 of NATO?

If the Israelis attack Pakistan, they can expect a response from Turkey and Saudi? I think the language is basically the same as Article 5. I don't think the intent and the interpretation is the same. First, some of these countries are already in a state of war. For example, there is a war going on between Saudi Arabia and Ansar al-Lah, the de facto government of northern Yemen. And that is not included in this. The second point is that if Israel attacks Saudi Arabia, it can expect a Pakistani response.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan already had a defense agreement, the import of which was exactly that, and that Pakistan was prepared to extend a nuclear deterrent to Saudi Arabia in case of an Israeli attack on Saudi Arabia, or for that matter, the Iranian development of a nuclear weapon. I think, however, I would regard this, and here we get into a terminological issue, the word alliance is bandied about with great abandon in our current lexicon, but an alliance is an unconditional commitment to come to the aid of another party or both parties to such an agreement. This is an entente. This is a limited partnership for limited purposes. It is contingent on certain things happening. And like Article 5, which is often misinterpreted in the United States, there is no automaticity

at all to the response to aggression by someone else. In the case of Article 5, the United States insisted that if, on the one hand, we would regard attack on any NATO member as an attack on us. But on the other hand, we would respond in accordance with our constitutional processes, which means a declaration of war by the Congress. The Congress under the Constitution has the sole power to start wars. Of course, we've now abandoned the constitutional constraints and gone to an effective detective dictatorship for the war power.

This Saudi-Turkish-Pakistani agreement similarly just says that they will be obligated to respond. Well, maybe they'll respond with a press release. Maybe they'll respond with a nuclear weapon. We don't know. This is the nature of deterrence to keep uncertainty alive. And I think that's what this agreement does. Great analysis, Ambassador. Thank you very much.

Thanks so much for your time. And we'll look forward, as always, to seeing you next week, my dear friend. Let's hope I'm around to see you. Okay. God bless you. Thank you. All the best. Coming up this morning, if you're watching us live in 36 minutes, at 9 o'clock, Professor

John Mearsheimer, at 10 o'clock, Aaron Matae, at 11 o'clock, Scott Ritter, at 2 o'clock, Matthew Ho, at 3 o'clock, seems like we're already into tomorrow, but at 3 o'clock today, Colonel Karen Kutkowski, Justin Pawal Tano for judging freedom.