Judging Freedom - COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : Checkmate in Iran

Episode Date: May 14, 2026

COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : Checkmate in IranSee 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 preempted 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 Thursday, May 14, 226, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, joins us now, Colonel Wilkerson. It's always a pleasure, my dear friend. I want to spend some time exploring with you the current state of affairs between the United States and Iran and even ask you about this piece by Robert Kagan, whom I'm going to guess you know from your years in the Bush administration. King of the Neocons. Correct. The Grandee of the Neocons, which makes this piece all the more startling. But before we get there, What cards does President Trump have to play in China this weekend?

The cards that he took along with him, the CEOs, including the trillionary, Elon Musk, of a lot of American technocratic corporate entities. That's about the only thing he took with him. Right, right. But if he's looking for, you know, for example, he told Bill Hammer, my buddy and former colleague of Fox News, that he and President Xi agreed that President Xi would pressure Iran on nuclear enrichment. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said there was no such agreement in their private, private meaning no press conversation. So ask you, are you surprised that Trump has a different view?

On the other hand, he has no leverage on this issue with President Xi, does he? No, and I'm convinced now, after watching Trump for quite some time, you know, first term, two years, almost, second term, I'm convinced that he often metastasizes words he's heard, if that's a good expression, and in his own vernacular reinterprets them. And he actually believes them when they pour forth from his lips. Not all the time, but on serious issues such as these. he does that and he convinces himself that he's heard what he has not heard and that sometimes people have done what they have not done. And I can't wait to see what he does when he gets back with Cash Patel if he's doing what he's doing on other issues similar to this to the people in the DNI and elsewhere who apparently now have leaked to the New York Times and the New York Times growing a new boldness for some reason is printed to start. One, on countries providing arms to Iran from China, but through those countries rather than directly from China. Of course, that's the way it would be happening probably.

And then the other issue probably even more serious is that Iran is not in the condition that Trump's saying it is, that they have a lot left and that they can use that lot if we reattack them. So why would the CIA leak that to the Washington Post? I imagine there's some disquiet growing in the bowels of all the influence community, particularly I and R. State, which is the top intelligence entity in the American repertoire, and other places like DIA, where there are some people down at the lower level and middle level who are fairly competent people, if not very competent people, especially in their writ. And some of these people are Iran desk officers, for example, been tracking Iran for 20 years or more. And they're sick and tired of this. And so they've begun to leak.

So when the president says things like they have no Navy, they have no missiles, we've degraded everything. They're totally at our mercy. He may actually believe that. He may. Even though it is divorced from reality. So under the law, that would not be a lie. Alastair, a crook agrees with you on this. And that's more dangerous. I think that's more dangerous.

It may be more dangerous than lying, to be honest with you. Absolutely more dangerous than lie. I mean, Alster calls it confabulation where you are not telling a truth, but you honestly believe it is. You've convinced yourself it is. You think you've got three days, and you only got a pair of twos. You know? Yeah.

Yeah. But what will what will the Chinese think of what he said to Fox News? They know that President Xi would never enter into an agreement like that. I doubt very seriously they'll come out and officially say that it's untruth,

though they could, because they understand who they're dealing with and they understand where he stands. And in essence, judge, the Chinese strategy, the grand strategy, is being successfully executed, but not so much by Beijing, it's responsible for the power China has built up, to be sure. But by the suicide, the empire is now doing to itself. And they're not going to disturb that. They do not want to disturb that. Now, Xi has been very circumspect. He has let it be known that he doesn't want it to

happen so precipitately that some of the blowback hits China, serious blowback, it's China. Like, for example, this closing of the Strait of Hormuz and China having to look elsewhere, even possibly to the United States on a temporary basis for oil. So he wants us to go ahead and complete the suicide, but not so precipitously that we damage him and maybe damage him in ways that really sets China back. Are you able to speculate as to what the Chinese leadership thinks of Donald Trump? Well, I have to say this, Judge. Don't get me laughing.

This is, this comes from my experience with Richard Haas and Wang Yi, when Wang Yi, now the Chinese foreign ministers, you know, was really the most knowledgeable man in the, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and we were meeting with them, had lunch with them, talked them in the afternoon for about four hours, then had a second day, and then met again in Korea. When we met this gentleman and we realized how competent he was, Richard grabbed me out in the hallway and he said, we just met with the guy who's going to be the future foreign minister of China. I said, I agree with you, Richard. And I didn't agree with Richard a lot of things.

But when we talked with them at length about key issues, one of the key ones, for example, was helping them with their HIV-AIDS problem, which was just rampant at that time. And we had figured out why, and we actually cooperated with them, brought some Harvard people over, other medical people. And we essentially together solved their problem. Within a year, we had cut their HIV incidence rate by half, and then it plummeted from there. All to say that Wang Yi is one of the most brilliant people I've met in the world in terms of diplomacy, but just in general, his knowledge is comprehensive. It's bottomless almost, particularly of us. And you've got to remember Zhe's being advised by him and other Chinese from the Central Party school who are just as good. So they are looking at a situation in the world that is almost entirely in their favor, developing more so every week that goes.

by in that direction. They have problems. They know they have problems, but they're dealing with those problems. And they're looking at an empire that opposes them, look at the opening remarks that she made. He even included the Thucydidities trap in his remarks if the translation was accurate. I can't wait to talk to Master Freeman to find out if it was. I suppose it was. So he's well aware of all the things that encircle us in terms of what we believe. and read and think about and so forth. And he's very well aware what his own people believe

and think about and read, Confucian as it is, strategic as it is, as opposed to ours being daily tactical, and he knows he's winning. And so why would you want to deal with this man on an equal basis except pro forma,

except for the cameras, except for what's going to be reported about it? Because you don't want to reveal any more of your win, then you have to. And you certainly don't. And I think this is at the bottom of G's calculations too, as it is I know in the Politburo,

and certainly within the leadership of the military, many of whom he's just gotten rid of, partly maybe because of this, that we're going to go to nuclear war if we do fight and the most likely issue we would fight over. Still in their minds is Taiwan. And so he has brought that up very powerfully with Trump.

And I would have been surprised if he didn't, because that was always with us, when we negotiated with the Chinese, their number one issue. Didn't matter what you were doing. Colonel, before Trump uttered a word in public, he was lectured in public by President Xi on Taiwan. Yes. Before President Xi even welcomed into the room,

he launched into, this is a red line, don't even go there. You might go to lunch with Wang Yi, and the first thing he'd say is he stuck the first piece of the lunch in his mouth, is remember Taiwan now? By the way, does Donald Trump have anybody around him as smart as Wong-Yee? Not remotely, except perhaps some of the CEOs in their very narrow niche. And that's a problem because, you know, we had no preparation for this meeting. The only preparation you see sitting around in the room, that's the only preparation.

Look at Elon Musk and the cameras that he's been exposing himself to. And the cameras go and get him. he's leading a child, he's taking his cell phone and looking at pictures and everything. I mean, that's what we have to offer to the Chinese. That's it. There was no meeting. There were no working here. The Americans didn't even know who was going to greet Trump at the bottom of the stairs.

They were expecting President Xi and it was this vice premier and they didn't know who he was and whether or not he spoke English. Wasn't there an advanced team? Apparently not. I know there was no working groups and no I did anything to prepare the president for this meeting other than what normally happens when you're going to a business meeting. What are we looking for? Let me jump to Iran because of who Kagan is. Washington can't reverse or control the consequences of losing this war.

So Professor Dieson, Phil Giraldi, Max Blumenthal all say yes, yes. He condemned Trump, but there's a subliminal meaning here. One is a lament that the neocon dream is not going to happen now. And the other is a warning to the man in Tel Aviv and his rich friend in Las Vegas. You can still do something. Explain, please. I think you're, I think you're, whomever you're quoting or referring to is right. I think this is not over, and it wouldn't even be over if Donald Trump declared if he surrendered

in the middle of the Persian Gulf got on a ship and sailed out, it wouldn't be over because Israel would still be fomenting whatever it can foment, and ultimately it can foment a lot when you consider this as a crew weapons. And here's the other thing, Judge. I am more than ever convinced that not only are there places in Iran, deep underground, that are unscathed, I'm convinced one of them is dedicated to exactly what we knew was going to happen in 2002 when we're working on the A2Conn network, and we saw the North Koreans working underground with the Iranians. They are putting together everything that's necessary to top one of their faster missiles,

or several probably. Think about the new Indian missile, the air. that goes 30,000 kilometers per hour and has a range, extended range of 7,000 kilometers, they are going to build this underground and they're going to wind up presenting it to the Israelis as a fait accompli. That fait accompli might be an explosion in Tel Aviv. Wow. If Trump, for whatever reason, fear of losing the midterm, suddenly getting a sense of morality, whatever goes through his brain, enters into some long-term peace agreement, whether you call it a treaty or a ceasefire, I don't want to go there now because of the

implications of involving the Senate and a treaty, and stops all aggressive action and brings the troops home. Well, what can Netanyahu do? He can't take on, unless he uses nuclear weapons, he can't take on Iran alone and expect to prevail. Submarines with surface launch or subsurface launch, I still haven't been able to find out if they've mastered subsurface launch of small yield nuclear weapons would be a reaction and a reaction that the world would take note of for sure, but I'm not all that confident the world would do much about it,

except complain in all the usual places, because all you'd have in Iran is several explosions that were a little bit bigger than normal, but you would have sent a signal to Iran that you are serious about not disappearing, and you're so serious, and you have 200 or so more of these. So in other words, you think that the Israelis would use, I'll use an old-fashioned phrase, you correct me, please, low-yield nuclear weapons. It's not going to look like Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but it's going to be nuclear.

And it will all depend on how they fuse them, airburst, near air burst, high air burst, ground bursts, underground bursts, underground bursts, always different ways you can fuse them, and depending on the terrain and the nature of the terrain. They could do that, and I do not put it past them at all. This administration in Israel has indicated that no crime on the face of the earth is beyond them. What did you think when you read Robert Kagan's book, or not book, it's an article in the I think you've known and interacted with him since his days when he worked for Vice President Cheney, am I right? I think he was voicing his hour that we aren't serious about what we're doing or don't appear

to be, and he was also issuing a challenge. And as you said, he was also more or less covering up for the problems that were created by the clean break strategy in the first place and saying essentially what I think someone told me the other day I haven't found it yet but West Clark said was that it's done it's toast it's finished I don't think it is I don't think Netanyahu will rest until the clean break strategy has its last chapter I'm not even sure for him that that's the last chapter because I know his appetite is bigger than that I won't mention his name but a dear friend of who's regularly on this program has suggested that if Trump gives up the ghost on this war,

Mrs. Adelson and her colleagues might use their influence to promote the implementation of the 25th Amendment. That's how furious they would be if he abandoned, if Trump abandons Israel for whatever reason, fear of losing the midterm, second thoughts about the whole thing, fear of assassination, whatever goes through his head. I think that would be a farcical move because I don't think the 25th Amendment will ever successfully remove an American president. It's impossible.

It was built into the amendment that it'd be impossible. Would they try it? Would their fury at his leaving this war and leaving Israel alone be so overwhelming that they would do something desperate? I realize you're predicting here. or projecting yourself into the minds of people you don't even know.

Well, the final and Rubicon-like thing you've got to overcome is Congress. And while this has been one of the most supine Congresses in the face of flagrant violations of the Constitution, you know, I was looking at this. From 2 September to the present, about nine months, we have conducted 55 lethal military strikes on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific. No warning shot, no boarding, no arrest, no trial, just death, 194 people did, no accounting to Congress or the people, the government, not publicly IDed any of them. And the DOJ document that presents its legal argument for this being legal is secret.

Correct. I wrote my column about it this week called when killing becomes commonplace, because the most recent killing was three days ago, and you didn't even see it covered. anywhere. Right. And we think we might be able to overcome the objections of the Congress to the 25th Amendment being ultimately successful? I think not. Not even Miriam Adelson. Wow. But she won't allow Israel to stand alone. Well, she'll put extraordinary pressure on Trump. Now you're talking Epstein. And I just don't know what's there. I really don't. But that seems to me to be that which gives Trump the most agency for these crazy ideas is his fear that he and Melania will be revealed. Historically, how bad is the U.S. defeat in Iran?

Well, we haven't won since Korea when we didn't win in Korea. You can say we won in the first Gulf War, and I would agree with you, but when you look at what happened post that victory, going to include the president being defeated. It's hard to say we won that. So we haven't won a war since World War II, really. Many people will argue, myself included, I've written a paper on this. Empires normally do not win in the traditional sense, Douglas MacArthur, there is no substitute for victory.

Go to hell, Doug. That's not what empires do. Empires simply hold the world at bad. and fulfill their monetary, economic, and other interests, mercenary interest. And that's all you can expect. And you fuel the complex that keeps those wars going on because that's what you want to do. You want to be constantly at war. But you don't want anyone to defeat you in the traditional sense.

So it's not really a metric you can use to judge the empire by winning or losing wars. It's no longer consequential in the same. scheme of things for Rome. But the empire has not achieved any of its stated goals. Well, it has achieved a few. It has gotten a barrier of conflict. That's what I'm calling it now, a barrier of conflict. What the hell is that? From the Arctic Ocean, all the way, a barrier of conflict, not barrier to conflict, of conflict. Conflict all the way from North of a mask in the Arctic Ocean where we're doing things, the American people and our media aren't report, don't know anything about. We're all the way through the Baltic where we're still

agitating around the Kaliningrad, all the way through Ukraine, all the way down to Georgia, where we're still trying to overturn that government. Other governments in the Caucasus are now being impacted by that too, down to Iran, the biggest and latest chapter in this axis of crisis and disturbance. And all this is designed to put a wall up against further Chinese and Russian now, infiltration into Eastern Western Europe and ultimately across the Atlantic and into the North American continent. That's what it's all about. And you can lose all the wars you want to as long as you keep that barrier up. But Trump and BB's goal was regime change not achieved, degrading ballistic missiles not achieved. These are all.

tactical. Well, their latest goal is opening the straight support moves, which they caused to be closed. First strategic move. Yep. It could be very bad for us and bad for the world. That's why I think we're either going to try to exterminate them. And when that fails, we're probably going to pick up our marbles and essentially come home and hope that Iran's sovereignty over the straight of removes, as it were, is litigated by the United Nations and others. China would like to see that done too. And we put some resurgence in and strength back in uncloths in the law of the sea. Because what we're doing with the straight right now is we're negating one of the most important chapters

in the law of the sea treaty, to which some 98 nations, as I understand it, are signed up to, just because we are, it doesn't mean anything. We adhere to it in almost all of its codicels and all of its issues, as do other people aren't signatory. But if we negate that, then, Judge, we're back in the days of the Barbary Pirates, only they're all over the world. Yeah. The Roycon taught Donald Trump, no matter how bad it is, declare victory.

Yeah, exactly. That's good advice. Wow. Pleasure, Colonel. Thank you. Chris will call you about that matter we discussed before we started. And I hope you can join us. If not, have a great weekend. If you can, I wish you a great weekend when we do this project. Thank you, Colonel. All the best. Take care. You too. Thank you. Coming up tomorrow Friday, at 9 in the morning, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, a critique of Donald Trump in China. at 4th of the afternoon, the Intelligence Community Roundtable.

Judge the Palatana for judging freedom.