Judging Freedom - Capt. Matt Hoh : Is U.S. Military Policy Being Driven by Israel?

Episode Date: February 11, 2026

Capt. Matt Hoh : Is U.S. Military Policy Being Driven by Israel?See 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? 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 Wednesday, February 11th, 226, Matt Ho, joins us now. Matt, it's a pleasure. Thank you very much. I want to talk to you at some length about the likely interaction between American and Israeli militaries, when and if, seems more likely when than if the President of the United States

orders a joint assault or invasion on Iran. But before we get there, we have been hearing some comments from Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov indicating that the Russians may be running out of patience with the United States. Do you have a handle on this? Do you have any understanding of whether or not anything good came out of the Anchorage, Alaska meeting, and if the Kremlin trusts the Trump administration. Well, according to the, and thank you for having me back on, Judge. Well, of according to the Russians, there seems to have been some agreement reached between the Americans and the Russians in Anchorage last year, basically a plan for how to go forward and promises of

what each side would accomplish or deliver. And we saw elements of this or hints of this. if people recall going into that summit between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, the American position was at ceasefire first, then a peace deal. And coming out of that, it was the position was reversed in Donald Trump and the Americans adopted the Russian position that, no, there's no need for a ceasefire first. We need to have a peace deal. Otherwise, you're just going to have ceasefires that are going to be temporary or going to start and stop or, you know, we need to get to the root causes of the.

of this issue. And to the, you know, to follow up on that in regards to how the Russians have acted all along, they've always emphasized this need to address the root causes, to address the foundational issues of this war, things that, you know, we've talked many times about, but most especially for the Russians, their national security concerns at being surrounded by NATO over the last 30-some-odd years, the plaintiff of American-Mexam. missiles into Europe, I don't necessarily, the place American missiles into Poland and Romania, the idea that NATO troops, American missiles would go into Ukraine, all things that are reasonably understood in terms of why someone would have these concerns and how those types of provocations

could lead to the war that we witnessed began almost four years ago. And so at Anchorage, there seemed to be some type of understanding between the Americans and the Russians that they're going to pursue a peace deal, that neither side was going to ration up tensions with the other, that they're going to work together. The American side was expected not to, according to the Russians, expected not to increase sanctions, increased support for the Ukrainians, to basically, I think, tone down the vitriol or attempt to tone down the vitriol coming from the European side. And, you know, now here we are in February, what, six months after Anchorage. And I think the Russians feel that they've been double crossed.

You know, this is how the Americans act. I mean, I think all of us who are Americans have to face the reality that you can't trust the United States. That the United States will double cross. The United States will leave deals. The United States will betray. And you could see that through the actions of successful administration. but this administration in particular, whether it was, say, with the Palestinians, where the Palestinians were doubled crossed a number of times. And last year, when it came to trying to achieve terms for a

ceasefire in Gaza, just one specific example, the United States got the Palestinians to release an American citizen who have been serving the IDF, who is being held as a prisoner of war by the Palestinian resistance. The American said, look, if you get him out, then we will make the Israelis come to the table and agree to a deal with you. And of course, as soon as that young man was returned back home to the United States, the United States acted as if it never happened. You know, I mean, so it's one example of many. The Iranians have dealt with this.

The Venezuelans have dealt with this. I think the Europeans have a leg to stand on when they say they feel betrayed by the United States. And the Russians, of course, because this goes back to the very beginning. We don't even have to talk about the betrayal of Minsk, too, of any of the other agreements that have come and gone over the last third. All right, let me hear that's what Chance Baker said, right? Not one inch here because I want to play a clip from Sergei Lavrov in which his complaints seem very valid to me.

He's saying, look, all these sanctions were imposed by Biden. Trump has blamed all this on Biden. Has he lifted the sanctions? No, he's actually made them worse. And some of the sanctions were based on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, something that's been totally debunk, especially of all people, Trump himself. Now, Labrov says this a little with more calmness than I'm saying.

But I want your thoughts on this. Chris, cut number two. President Putin has a dollar. Under Biden, the U.S. has done everything to turn the dollar into a weapon against those who are out of favor. And I would like to point out and emphasize. that the U.S. administration, notwithstanding the various public statements we have heard regarding the urgent necessity of bringing a conclusion to the war in Ukraine, that was originally unleashed during

the Biden administration, we need to come to an agreement, remove it from the agenda, and then clear, bright prospects for mutually beneficial Russian-American investment and other cooperation will open up. But all the laws that Biden passed to punish Russia, after the start of the special military operation, are not being challenged by the Trump administration. For example, in April, the state of emergency law was extended. The core of which is the punishment of Russia, the imposition of sanctions against Russia,

including the freezing of our gold and foreign currency reserves. This is explicitly stated as being due to Russia's hostile behavior in foreign policy. And as examples, interference in United States elections is cited, The very thing President Trump categorically opposes on a daily basis and rejects all of it. And violations of international law, human rights. There's no end to the list. This is all pure Bidenism, which Trump and his team reject outright. But nevertheless, they calmly extended it.

The law of the sanctions against Russia continue to be in effect. I mean, he is one smart cookie. You know, God, just listening to him. wildly. If he's, you know, tempting to get under Trump's skin, he's doing it the right way by you know, comparing him to Biden. I mean, I can't imagine anything would upset Trump more than being called, being told that he's practicing Bidenism. But Robb is, is correct in all of this. And the danger here is, and this is what the Americans do continuously. We fail to understand our adversaries and we fail to understand their sense.

seriousness. And again, we can bring up a lot of examples. The one closest to my heart is Afghanistan where the Taliban tell us over and over again what they plan to do, how they plan to do it. They express, say, their interest in negotiations for years upon years during our occupation. And then when they finally say, if you don't negotiate now, we're going to win this war militarily, which they do around 2011, 2012. They do. They go ahead and win the war military. They force the United States to withdraw and then they take over the country. I mean, so we've seen this over and over again with the Russians as well. Vladimir Putin and the right and other Russian leaders have for 25 years longer expressed a concern, dismay, warnings over the escalation of tensions with the West

and most especially again, the encroachment of NATO towards Russia and this encirclement of Russia with all its history of being invaded, plus the warnings that came from dozens upon dozens of American officials, including Joe Biden's director of Central Intelligence, William Burns, who warned over and over again about the dangers of American policy in terms of provoking Russia, in terms of causing Russia to have to act in its defense by possibly invading Ukraine, by possibly having a civil war occurring Ukraine, all these, warnings issued by Bill Burns, as well as, again, dozens and dozens of other American officials, whether they were serving or they were retired. I mean, so you see this with the Russians.

This is what I'm feeling here, Judge, is that, you know, you've got Lavrov saying, look, we're telling you this. We're saying this to you. We can't hold on to this any longer without doing something about it. You're forcing us to act. And so the Russians, too, I feel that, you know, they use this term special military operation, which is not something I use. This is a war. I don't use the term Operation Iraqi Freedom. I put those in the same box. But for the Russians, the term is very technical, but in the same way that the Americans, it was technical to call Iraq or Operation Iraqi Freedom, technical to call Afghanistan Operation Enduring Freedom, as well as to the public relations attempt to try and say this isn't really a war.

But with the Russians, the idea, though, is that we are only doing a military operation. We're not carrying out a war. And I get this feeling that's coming through not just Salgari Lavrov, but all representatives from the Russian government as well as Russian media, that we are getting to the point now where we may have to abandon this idea of taking part in a limited war and taking part in a special military operation and carry out an actual war, which would, I think, mostly mean a war that resembles how the United States destroyed. the Islamic State, say in Syria and Iraq by destroying cities. The Russians did that as well in Syria, but then also to maybe something more akin to making parts of Ukraine outside of the front lines

resemble parts of Gaza in terms of their destruction. I don't know if the Russians would commit the over-war crimes we saw the Israelis did, but certainly the effect on the Ukrainian population from the Russians going to a full-scale war as opposed to a, quote, special military operation unquote would be quite traumatic and quite devastating. I mean, we've seen just in the last year, you had one drone strike a Ukrainian government building. And Tali Klitsko, the mayor of Kiev, said, look, this was an accident. This drone wasn't meant to hit this Ukrainian government building. So nearly four years of war, the Russians have restrained from hitting civil government buildings in Ukraine. You know, at what point then do they say, okay, those are fair targets now,

as long as whatever other target list they can come up. So, I mean, the frustration that's coming to us from the Russians very deliberately. I know Larry Johnson had an excellent post on this, on his substack. I encourage people to go read this. He points out how Sergei Lavrov has spoken on this issue three times and three days now, which is unusual for that type of press appearance by Lavrov. But the message is clear, Judge. the message is clear.

The United States needs to, if this administration is serious about ending this war, it needs to get serious in its actions and actually put together some type of package that can be pushed through the Ukrainians and the Europeans in order to bring about the negotiated end to this war before this war escalates, something that we've all been arguing for and dreading as well, this idea of an escalation of this war. that very much. And what do you see, though, on the other side? And I think this is really important. What do we see on the other side, though? What do we see coming out of the Western press,

particularly coming from the European capitals, this ramping up. I mean, it's already been ramped up, but a further ramping up of this hysteria about Russia invading Europe. I mean, you've seen Estonians, Lithuanians, the Poles, this constant drumbeat, the Germans, the French, in terms of how much they're increasing their militaries and their rationales. for doing so, all this preparation for war with Russia, a war that they're going to get because they're going to make it a reality of their own making. This is the rather than seeing the equivalent on the European side, understanding the reality of war, understanding where this war can go, issuing warnings about, hey, look, we need to

stop this thing before it escalates further. What we're getting from the European side is a drumbeat for more war. And so the American administration, if it could just do one thing correct, which it seems to can't, it can't. But if we could just do one thing correct to end this war, because at least with all the other things that this administration has done, all the horrible, terrible, unconstitutional, criminal things it's done. At least it's gut instinct on the need to end this war.

Wherever that gut instinct came from, it was correct. And so they need, the Trump administration needs to file that gut instinct and end this war before the warnings that we're getting from the Russians come true. It appears now that Trump's gut instinct is to start a new war, As we speak, he's preparing to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I'm sure he knows what Netanyahu is going to ask. Netanyahu probably told Whitkoff and Kushner last night that he wants the president to unleash the dogs of war. What do you think we can expect in terms of either something symbolic in and out or something substantive trying to decapitate the regime?

Judge, I'm not sure if your use of that phrase, Unleashed the Dogs of War was purposeful or not, but that is another Bidenism. Joe Biden, when the United States invades Iraq, March 19, 2023, that is his comment, Unleashed the Dogs of War. It's something that's been buried, but that's exactly what Joe Biden said. And so this overarching theme of Bidenism that we're addressing here today, right?

You see this again. Blame it on. on Lavrov. But, you know, this willingness of Trump and his people to go forward with this, with all the historical evidence beforehand, as well as just let's sit down and game this out and see how it might go. You know, what are our resources? What do we have available to accomplish this?

But certainly what we saw last year, this is what, Judge, I think the seventh visit of Netanyahu or the seventh meeting of Netanyahu in Trump. Trump in essentially 12 months, essentially a year? I mean, that's incredible. We're hearing that he wanted to address Congress again, and Trump said no. Now, that's not a decision Trump can make. On the other hand, he has pretty much of an iron grip on Mike Johnson, who runs the House of Representatives. But talk to me about the military logistics. What will they do if their goal is to remove the regime? And can they remove the regime, literally kill the Ayatollah and President Peshkin and ferment the coup that they were unable to ferment last month?

Can they do this without boots on the ground? I think they think they can do it without troops on the ground. I think troops on the ground would make it worse. So I think it's, and it's just feasibly not possible. We just don't have the force structure, the availability of soldiers, the units, let alone the, the positioning base is to carry out an invasion of Iraq as we did. I mean, of Iran, excuse me, as we did with Iraq in 2003. It's just fundamentally a different military structure and geopolitical reality.

There isn't the, where you launch this from is just, you know, one question of many. But the, and then the absurdity of it, too, we was terrible in Iraq 20 years ago carrying out that occupation in a country of, I think about 25 million people, roughly half the geographical size of Iran, which has 90 million people. So, you know, let alone the technology, my friends and I talk about this about how bad improvised explosives were. During our time in Iraq, you know, how many of our fellow soldiers and Marines were killed by those, roadside bombs, suicide bombers, things like that. But now you have drones, right? to this idea of flying IEDs, you know, it's just, you know, put yourself into that would be just

incredibly stupid. But I think the goal judge is, if not regime change, is to fracture Iran into a Syria-like state where it becomes divided. You have a civil war. And essentially, there's no central authority that can oppose American and Israeli domination of the Middle East, as well, it serves a warning, you know, to other nations. If you step out of line, this is what happens to you. I mean, that's, you know, a key, key aspect of empire is to enforce its authority. But I think what we've seen over the last year or so, or actually go back two years, because I think what occurred, both Syria and Lebanon, is instructive. You would see attempts to utilize sectarian forces in Iran, to cause us unrest, to cause us instability, cause attacks on security forces, to cause areas to become

autonomous, if you will, to have a civil war. So whether that's Kurdish or Baluk or Arab or Turkmen, you know, or any other multitude of ethnicities that are in Iran, you know, that's what you would see. You'd see the sabotage attacks. You'd see the cyber attacks. You'd see assassinations. You'd see these small drones being launched from within Iran attacking different parts. I mean, so we've already seen all that. The assassinations would be key. I think the idea for the Americans and Israelis would be to shut down the Iranian government. They might be successful in killing, again, top leaders.

They certainly were successful back in June and killing many top military commanders, many scientists. They came close to killing President Poschian. And, you know, so the idea is that we can't kill them. If we can't get to the Ayatollah, then at least put him underground and make him in communicato. In this way, the government has two problems. One, they're not communicating effectively. Their chain of command has been gravely disturbed. And that's something I'm sure the Iranians have played out and worked out and have a plan for. The other, I think, is much tougher and more insidious.

Your population no longer sees its leadership. Yeah, you're hearing that the Aytah is still alive someplace in the bunker, but you haven't seen his image in a week. Right, right. I mean, you know what that does. Yeah. Let me switch gears for a minute. Professor Miranda reminded us that yesterday was a day of great celebration or was to have been, it turned out to be, a day of great celebration in Iran commemorating the overthrow of the Shah.

And we have a clip from Patrick Henningson, with whose work you are, I think, familiar, American podcaster, who was present in the midst of a tumultuous pro-regime demonstration of voting. millions of people at 8 o'clock on the morning in Iran. This is a fascinating clip. Watch this. Chris cut number 11. Well, you can see right now there's probably between two and two and a half million people out on the streets at 8 a.m. this morning, a total show of national solidarity by the people. And you will not see this.

Not even a second of it will be covered on. Western mainstream media, you won't hear about it on any of the US media, not BBC Persia either, nothing. Because Western media do not want to portray this country, Iran, as having a national identity or a national solidarity, especially under the Islamic Revolution theme as well, which is why everybody is out here today. This is the equivalent of their independence day in Iran. So this isn't the story that the West wants to spread around the world. They want to spread stories of riots, of division, of unrest, and oh, the people are not supporting the regime.

But now you can see it's quite the opposite. So is Trump going to listen to that, or is he going to listen to the propaganda end of that will come out of the mouth of whatever Mossad people Netanyahu brings with him. That's not even a close call. We know what he's going to do. Yeah, exactly, Judge, right? And I didn't have John Ratcliffe there, the Mossad stenographer, who also masquerades as the head of the CIA, just nodding in agreement. And you can't find anyone in Washington, D.C., who's going to go in there and tell him otherwise. Right. I mean, this idea of Iran as an adversary, this idea of Iran as the commensurate bad guys,

as being firmly on the far end of the mannequin scale of good and evil. This is an article of faith in Washington, D.C. This is something that nearly everyone who has a job with the federal government will attest to. There might be those within the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department, what's left of the NSC, that will say, yeah, this wouldn't be a good idea to do where this doesn't really make sense to do it, or, you know, we're hypocrites for treating Iran this way and the Saudis another way. But they all will more or less line up on the line of, yes, the Iranian government is bad. And look, if I was there, Judge, I would not like the government, right?

I mean, they classify people as enemies of God. That's not my thing. But so do how many other governments that we only not just support but provide billions of dollars of weapons, I mean, so the hypocrisy, of course, is appalling. But the degree that Iran is viewed in a manner in which the only thing that they will understand is military force or draconian sanctions that are crippled, not just crippling the economy, but hurting the people. You know, I think all of us understand the genesis of the protests that began in December, that they were popular in or didn't they were organic. But then they were consumed. Then they were taken over. They were hijacked by other forces, right? I mean, and this is something that's really astounding to see in the

Western press. This, I shouldn't say astounding. It's not surprising. Why am I saying that? Let me stop you again, Matt, because I want to get under your skin. This is the nonsense. Please don't say I'm practicing Bidenism. No, no, no, no. And this is not Lindsey Graham, but someone almost as absurd in her views. I can't stand this, but I have to play it. You'll know who this is in a minute, but this is what Trump is listening to. Cut number 12.

This is a legacy defining moment for President Trump. Iran has never been weaker than they are right now. He did a great thing when he did Operation Midnight Hammer and weakened them. He stood with Israel and made. sure that we weaken their proxies and we're trying to get those out of the way. But the one thing you don't want to do is you don't want to send all these resources over there and then still have the Iranian regime standing. The key at the end of the day is no nuclear enrichment, no more ballistic missile or drone activity, making sure the Iranian people finally

have the freedom that they deserve and no more money going to their proxies. And Iran's never going to agree to that. And that's why I think the president needs to take his moment and make this a legacy defining moment. Well, it turned my stomach, but that's what he's listening to and that's what you'll see on all the mainstream media. Right. That just verbatim, you know, resuscitation of those talking points there, you know, and how clearly she espouses them, probably reading them right off the screen in front of her. If Trump believes that stuff, if Trump believes that Iran is weak, he's believing it at his and

Israel's peril. Exactly. You know, and that's the one thing Haley does get correct there, Judge, is this idea that this could be a legacy defining moment for Donald Trump. I mean, he's certainly doing his best through, you know, all sorts of other acts to have his legacy solidified. But, you know, this might be it in a sense of this is the man who, who all those people who were worried about the Middle East being thrown into a regional war, all those who weren't about an American military defeat in the the Persian Gulf, all those who weren't about the catastrophe that would befall 90 million people in Iran, as well as the people of Israel and other parts of the region, if this war was to be carried

out. You know, we spoke last week or two weeks about the vulnerabilities here in the U.S. Donald Trump, if he carries out this war, is making those things possible. Not saying that's what's going to happen, but that's where I'm putting my money on. That's, you know, after, right, looking at this for my entire adult life, right, doing this for 30-some-odd years, you know, this is what stands right in front of me very starkly, that this is an incredibly poor decision. Not poor decision. This is a disastrous decision that's being pushed by people like Benjamin Nanyahu, Lindsay Graham, Nikki Haley, you know, I wouldn't. You could go around

the couches in the Oval Office into a person they're pushing it. Matt, I have to run. Thank you very much for your time. Very, very informative. I appreciate your analysis. Look forward to seeing you next week. Thanks, Judge. Thank you, my friend. Coming up later today, at one o'clock, Professor Glenn Deeson at two o'clock, Scott Ritter. At three o'clock, the great Phil Giraldi at 3.45, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.