Judging Freedom - COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : The Consequences of Losing a War

Episode Date: July 2, 2026

COL. Lawrence Wilkerson : The Consequences of Losing a WarSee 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 Thursday, July 2nd, 2006. If you don't recognize that youngster because he's been on vacation, it's my dear friend, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, affectionately known as Uncle Larry, Colonel Wilkerson, what a pleasure to see you back, my dear friend. Thank you very much for accommodating my schedule today. You know, I'm off for a couple of weeks, so this is a one-off, but we couldn't finish this week without you. Is there a general acceptance amongst diplomats, intelligence, and military officials that the United States and Iran, excuse me, the United States and Israel lost two wars to Iran, one in June of 25 and the other in February, March, and April of 26.

I don't know how many of them you would get to admit that, especially on the record, but I think quite a few of them probably understand that, intuitively, if not outright. And let me just say what I think I gleaned on the plane back, long ride from Salt Lake City. I think what we're looking at right now is Trump thinks he has Beebe's number. Bebe knows he has Trump's number. Mohammed bin Salman thinks he has both of their numbers. The Pakistanis think they have all of that crowd's number. And the Iranians have the telephone.

That's where we are now. Wow. Or what control does Trump think he has over BB? Do you foresee Trump complying with Clause 1 of the MOU, which is to get the IDF out of Lebanon? I think Arets has it right, if I'm reading between the lines and in some places explicitly,

that what's happening right now is that Trump believes he has some measure of control over what Bibi does, but Trump is ultimately going to join BB in a second, and they think, both of them, overwhelming attack on Iran. And it is coming, and it is going to come either right before the elections or right after the elections if BB is successful and stays in power. And I would submit that it might even happen, even if BB's replaced, just might be delayed slightly.

That is a situation that I think is fraught with problems, for the immediate reasons of, let's take a look at the MOU and at the trilateral agreement, whatever they're calling it, and you look at them, and they're so contradictory that you can't understand

exactly how they call this diplomacy. And nothing has changed in terms of the forced deployments on the ground in Lebanon or in Gaza or elsewhere, and he's rolling up the West Bank as fast as he can. And he's in Syria, and I think he's contemplating

going deeper into Syria. So you're looking at forced dispositions that belie all this diplomacy, particularly the force disposition in Lebanon where Beebe is doing pretty much as he pleases and is not going to stop anytime soon. Now Hezbole knows that. And Iran knows that if Bebe continues in this way, even if he just stays static, then Hezbo is not going to be able to forcefully and outright and decisively join as it did before in attack. attacking Israel when Iran hits it again, which it inevitably is going to do. So Iran's got to be concerned that that disposition of forces is there in Lebanon and sort of made sacrosan by this hodgepodge of diplomacy that's occurred. But I don't think that's going to stop them from another attack on Israel.

In fact, it may be even more intense than we would expect otherwise because Hezbole won't be able to join in unless Hezbollah works away into the north again in a way that's unimpeded, not impeded by the Israelis, which they are going to try to do and is able to join in again and reinforce what Iran does to Israel. Then you've got to think about what is Iran going to do if this kicks off again in a big way, and they understand that once again they've been cheated, they've been lied to, and it's a big, big war again. Then they're going to hit these other targets, I think,

like they have hit targets in the first round, but these targets are going to be, as I've said before, very, very detrimental to the global economy. They're going to hit things that really are going to impact the global economy. They won't do it to the extent that I thought before because I think Russia and China are tapering that a little bit or refining it a little bit in terms of what might happen in that round of attacks. Unless, of course, Iran and China see that the United States and Israel are in combination going for the golden ring, if you will, to pursue the utter destruction and defeat and Bantistan creation of Iran. In that case, here's the bottom line.

Russia and China are not going to let Iran fall, period. Not going to let them fall. Well, what will they do if Trump? Trump resumes all out war. They will pour everything they possibly can in there in terms of across the Caspian, across the railroads and elsewhere, and they will put the squadrons in the air that they've been training feverishly, 24-7 of Russian aircraft, probably both Iranian and Russian pilots.

And they will unleash the remainder of the ballistic missiles that they have and possibly begin to hit targets that will get our attention very, very rapidly. as well as Europe's attention, because these targets are going to do precisely what the capabilities of Iran has suggested they will do if they get angry enough, and if they think they are at a point where they need to do this. These targets are going to put the world into global recession and global depression. Let's go back to the MOU. Is it a legitimate and forcible document? Is it a ruse just to give both sides, all sides a pause to rearm? Well, that's part of it, but it's also a diplomatic jungle

in order to do things within that jungle that can come out of what has happened. Either way, or I should say, three different possibilities. Trump is not going to do anything but stand beside Bibi and support him. not going to join in it, Trump is going to join in it, or Trump's not going to do either. And any one of those three possibilities, given the political situation in our own country, are possibilities. I think the third is not a distinct possibility, but it could be. I mean, Trump has fooled us before. Go, Bebe, do whatever you have to do. Is there a probability from what you think and what your colleagues think that Trump would force

Netanyahu to remove the IDF from Lebanon, which is, of course, the reading of the MOU that the Iranians given. And quite frankly, it's a plain, plain reading. A neutral person would come to that conclusion as well. Bibi won't do it. He simply won't do it. I'll stake my honor on that. Bibi will not leave Lebanon. And he's got good strategic reasons, as much as I might think he's reprehensible for that position. but he will not leave because that will be a setback for excellence for him.

It'll be a setback because Hezbo will then have free reign to join with Iran and attacking Israel, both of them together, missiles coming out of both entities, and that will probably impair his ability to resume the war with Iran in a fulsome way.

So he's not going to adjust his position in Lebanon. I'll stake my reputation on that. How will Iran's asymmetric victory over the U.S. and Israel up to this point reshape the geopolitics of the Gulf? I mean, for what reason would those Gulf nations even want U.S. bases in their lands any longer? You're right. They wouldn't. But let's look at it. Let's look at the bigger picture. I think you have to bring Ukraine into this. When you bring Ukraine into it and you bring the disputants there into it, who are either by proxy or directly disputants in Southwest Asia as well,

you're looking at that tapestry that I talked about many moons ago about trying to go after China first indirectly and now with Southwest Asia we're going after China directly. So you're looking at a whole new situation with regard to world power, global power. And that situation is growing every day more and more adverse to the United States. And I think there are people behind Trump who understand that, and they're willing to go to the mat for it. And I think there are people in Brussels who are also willing to go to the map for it. We're going to see what happens after Putin is struck teeth now the way he has. And I don't think this is the end of I don't think he's going to stop.

And we were pulling the two theaters together, if you will, not just in terms of arms transfers and drones and so forth. We're pulling them together in terms of geopolitical and geostrategic realities. And we're pulling them together in terms of a last-ditch effort by the empire, the American empire and its lackeys, to include much of Europe now, to arrest this shift in power that is decisively in China's favor. And so it's much bigger than just these two theaters of war, as bloody as they seem. You mentioned Ukraine.

I'm going to play a clip of somebody who's very close to Putin and who's been pounding the table to try and get his boss, Putin, to decapitate the Ukrainian regime. They may have begun that last night, and who, by the way, is attending the Ayatollah Kamani's funeral on July 9th. This is the number three person in the Kremlin, the former president of Russia, Dmitri Medvedev, the attack dog. Number six, Chris. Today, our unity, our internal unity is stronger than the so-called Western civilization, a civilization that has, strengthened itself has

survived by by exploiting others and humanizing others it claims to be humanist it claims to respect human rights

but at the same time we can see that it supports some of the worst ideas possible going going so low as to support fascists, such as those who currently rule in Ukraine. Their support led not only to a collapse of the Ukrainian governance, it will lead to the collapse of their country in general. questions have an interest in the united states having normal relationships with a normal relationship with iran you know i have real problems not listening to what he just said and agreeing with him

all right well that's what you you and i and everybody on the show i've been talking about for the past couple of years now. And one wonders how you get out of a position like that. I mean, it's a position we put ourselves in. We're a thousand days into the atrocities in Gaza now. We're, according to the New York Times anyway, we're a million plus casualties on both sides. Think about that for a moment. I mean, here we are in 2026.

We got a million casualties on both sides, maybe more. in the Ukraine war. We have no resolution of that conflict other than Russia just completely destroying the damn country. And then what's that going to do to those who are remaining in NATO until we get new leadership, like in Germany? And we have this situation in Southwest Asia that China and Russia are essentially saying you are not going to win over our dead bodies, will you win? And we think we're going to get out of this with our, you know, whatever intact, I think not. We're headed for disaster. What will the Israelis do if the United States normalizes relationships, its relationship with Iran?

Go right ahead with what they were going to do anyway. If it's Iran versus Israel, it's not even a close call, correct? It shouldn't be, except we can't forget they have nuclear weapons. And as I said before, if Cy Hirsch is right in that chapter on Pollard, they have 30 at least thermonuclear weapons. That changes the whole picture if that is true, because I've said before, you'd have to use 50 or 60 of these weapons that are sort of Hiroshima-Agasaki type atomic bombs. But if they've got thermonuclear weapons, that's a real game changer. Wow. I want to get back to the Gulf states.

How bad... Judge, I just one addendum. I think Netanyahu would use them. Well, he might provoke Pakistan to respond. You know, they are 92,000 no-shows now. Now, admittedly, about 65% of those are Heredi draftees. But nonetheless, there are that many no-shows. I saw this morning that 92,000 or so are in dire straits with regard to either post-traumatic stress, injuries, or whatever.

I mean, you can't keep doing this to your military and expect that you're going to survive a resumption of conflict with Iran with maybe the United States holding your coat rather than joining your big time. And I'm not even sure, Judge, that if we join them big time with the shortage of munitions we have now, that that would really mean a lot. The White House leaked either on Sunday or Monday that sometime over the weekend. So we're talking five or six days ago. The president requested and received a briefing from the Pentagon. I guess that means Hegg Seth and General Kane. for the restart of the war, a massive, full-blown attack on Iran, sort of like what Trump promised

a few months ago. Why would this plan be presented now after we were defeated asymmetrically by the Iranians? That's a good question, especially when I have fresh information in the last 48 hours, that General Kane, not Hexeth, Hexeth, he's for whatever Trump wants to do, and maybe expanded even, but General Kane has been interposing some strenuous objections based on the fact primarily that we have real enemies out there, two of whom or, well, at least one of whom are protecting Iran right now

and standing up for it, and because of the shortage of munitions, that he's become adamant about this is not very smart. And Judge, what you were just talking about, I heard the figures about ground troops that they were going to use. 500,000 ground troops or whatever. You didn't even have 500,000. Yeah, I'm sitting down last night trying to figure out where the hell they're going to get these people. Wow.

Let me switch gears before we finish, Colonel. Did Russia just mount a massive attack on Kiev, the likes of which Dimitri Medvedev and others have been calling for in the past? months? I think so. The key here will be whether or not he keeps this up until he gets Zelensky or at least drives him underground or whatever. But I think the tide is turning with regard to Putin's circumspection, patience, prudence, and so forth. He's tired of it too. And he wants an end to it. And he knows that he's got to have an end to it if he's going to restrain some of the more strenuous people in his midst who want to do some things like pop a NATO country, maybe even use a nuclear weapon, low yield nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapon on a NATO country, and see what happens. I doubt very seriously that anything would happen, frankly. I don't think anybody would respond to it.

It would be absolute idiocy to respond to it, but you never know. much longer can the special military operation last, given the fact that the Ukrainians using British, French, German, Swedish, and American equipment have been doing these pen-fric strikes all around Moscow? Well, I think this situation is pregnant with the following question. If Putin unleashes the troops in the north out of Balarisi, Belarus, Belarus, and if if he closes the pincor that would then develop in the south and maybe takes Odessa before he does that or even maybe not, just cuts off access to Odessa.

And a pencer movement then comes into Keefe and it is, you know, I'm sorry, it's over and we're going to prove to you it's over. Then he is in a position that he didn't want to be in. He owns Ukraine principally. And that's a really disastrous situation to be in. and he knows that because he'd have partisan warfare from now until 20 years from now, 30 years from now. But he could do that, and he could do it so devastatingly that when he does withdraw, there's no prospect of any wood, I think, withdraw.

I don't think he'd stay there. There's no prospect of them resurrecting themselves than anything but partisan warfare for a long time to come. That's a draconian decision to make, but he might make that decision under the pressure that he's under now. Right. President Trump was not far from where you were fishing, if I remember my geography. You were in Idaho and he was in South Dakota. But when he was, North Dakota, and when he was there, he made a very interesting comment about President Theodore Roosevelt. Watch this.

TR was also a staunch and ferocious opponent of a thing called communism. You've been hearing a lot about that lately. He said the doctrines of communistic socialism, if consistently followed, mean the ultimate annihilation of civilization. Other than that, he thought it was wonderful. As we're seeing now, communism is the greatest threat to our country, including I believe this. You know when I said it? I said, boy, that's pretty severe. But I think it's true.

It's the biggest threat to our country, including World War I. World War II, Pearl Harbor, September 11th. I think it's a bigger threat, potentially a bigger threat than that, because it's like a cancer that spreads, and you better stop it fast. We will never let the United States become a communist country. Won't happen. I think he's confusing socialism and communism. I think his speechwriter did that because he looked like he was reading that.

Yeah, I really don't think he not. knows what he's talking about. I mean, first of all, communism didn't exist until a while after Peter Roosevelt left the scene. And secondly, you know, TR would be considered a socialist by today's standards. But even more ridiculous later on in that speech, we don't have the clip. Or maybe he said it to the news to the media. He claimed that he had just finished speaking to Teddy Roosevelt.

Now, he spoke to an AI version of Roosevelt. Is it possible in his own mind? He thought it was really TR? Anything's possible with this man, Judge. But it is, it's interesting. You know, when he was governor, you're right. He had a lot of socialist tendencies and did a lot of things that we today would call socialism. But that's the only sense I can make of what he was saying.

He was confusing socialism and communism, one in the economic system, the other an ideology, very different things. Right, right. Colonel, we missed you for the weeks you were away, and I will miss you while I'm away, but we'll be back full blast the third week in July, and we'll hope you and expect that you'll be with us. Well, let's just hope that the world's still here. Yes, yes, and this bloody thing that we're enduring. It's 100 degrees here, literally 100 in the U.S. York City today. It was 103 in my car this morning when I got in it. Wow. Colonel, all the best. Thank you for accommodating my schedule. Welcome back. You look

terrific and we'll talk to you soon. Thank you. Take care and have a good good leave. Thank you. And coming up later today, if you're watching us live in 35 minutes at 3 o'clock. I'm not sure where he is, but Chris has found him on all of this, on the attempt to assassinate. the head of the army of Pakistan, who was the chief mediator between the United States and Iran. And on where is the MOU going next? Pepe Escobar, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.