Judging Freedom - INTEL Roundtable: Weekly Intel Wrap-up w/ Johnson & McGovern

Episode Date: April 19, 2024

INTEL Roundtable: Weekly Intel Wrap-up w/ Johnson & McGovernSee 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 Friday, April 19th, 2024. It's the end of the day and the end of the week. It's our time for the roundtable with my dear friends, Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern. We have a lot to talk about. I'd like to begin with the attack by Israel on the Iranian consulate, the Iranian response to that and the Israeli response to that. Larry, to you first. What is your take on this? What the Israelis did was a war crime, a profound direct war crime as defined in several treaties to which Israel is a signatory, attacking the sovereign consulate of another nation. Yeah, it's a violation of international law.

And it was sort of hilarious to watch the Israeli representative at the UN yesterday claiming that to allow the Palestinians to be recognized as a member of the United Nations would be a violation of international law. So, you know, the Israelis think they're at a Chinese restaurant. They can pick and choose from the menu on which international laws they want to follow, which ones they want to break. But, you know, clearly they violated the Vienna Convention in 1961 by attacking that facility. And there is no justification under international law. They don't do exceptions like, well, if it's a really bad guy on the inside, yeah, you can blow it up.

No, that's not the rule. Iran's response was significant. And again, it's been portrayed in one of two different ways. In the West and in Israel, it was portrayed as a great defeat for Iran. Boy, they just destroyed everything that they sent. And it was a major loss of face for them. From the Iranian perspective, it was a success. And I think Scott Ritter did a really good job of laying out

how the Iranians with their ballistic missile strike proved that they can hit Israel if they want to. Which brings us to this thing that happened last night. Now, initially, we get what I call the breaking news mambo, you know, that dance that all the news anchors do. Oh, my God, breaking news. And everybody's huffing and puffing. And then they're interviewing a variety of correspondents who really don't know anything

other than repeating what they've heard. Now, I had just come off of Iranian television, press TV, their English version. So I'm back online on Skype with them. I go, what's going on? And they're going, we don't know. We got to find out. And then as the news sort of dribbled out on their side,

they said it was a bunch of drones and they all got shot down. So the Iranians were not, I mean, they weren't reacting at all. It was like, this is an irritant. Then I watched Al Jazeera and RT to see if they were having breaking news. No, they were covering other stuff. And then when they finally brought this up, it's like, yeah, there are these reports.

But in the United States, it was according to Israeli sources and according to Pentagon sources, massive strikes, airstrikes, missiles, you know, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria, that thing. And it wasn't true. It was maybe four quadrocopters, you know, the drones with four blades around the edge that were shot down and they posed no threat whatsoever to Iran. And this was almost like it was designed as an intelligence operation in the United States to create a propaganda effect here because the rest of the world basically has yawned and gone, you know, that was a nothing burger. So, Ray, let's go to what the Iranians did in response to the assault on their and destruction of their consulate, the murder of their two generals and of 13 or 14 civilians, a few of whom had nothing to do with this. They were outside the consulate. it. And when Iran responded, according to Alistair Crook and Colonel McGregor and Scott Ritter, the drones were pawns. The drones were lost leaders. They were sent out there to draw up

and force the Israelis, the Americans, the Brits, and the Jordanians to waste their defensive mechanisms. And the only ones they intended the Jordanians to waste their defensive mechanisms. And the only ones they intended to get through were the ones that did. So assuming you accept that, and if you disagree, tell me, was what Iran did an assault or a message? It was mostly a message. There were drones, and then there were cruise missiles, and most of them were shot down. But then there were ballistic missiles. Those ballistic missiles hit the airfield from which the fighter jets that shot those missiles into the Iranian consulate in Damascus were planned, and also an intelligence outfit on the top of the Golan Heights, which was involved in the intel. So it was a very discreet sort of targeted

reprisal for what had happened earlier on, on April 1st. Now, what did it also show? It was a demonstration. It showed that we don't give a rat's ass about our drones or even our cruise missiles. We now know where all your ABM and all your air defense things are. Thank you very much. And we can take out other things as well to include Dimona. What's Dimona? Dimona is the nuclear facility in which Israel has been making nuclear weapons for the last two decades, okay? That's where it all counts. And there are reliable sources say that the Iranians made it clear to everybody concerned, no, we're not going to hit Dimona, but we're going to hit the airfield, And so to vote shake, we can hit the Mona anytime we want. So it was a demonstration. Now, with respect to how Israel retaliated, and I love Larry's rendition of what went on last night, because I tried to watch it. It's just very distasteful. Nobody knew what was going on.

I see this as a very hopeful sign. I see it as a tradeoff. Remember on Monday when we talked, you asked me whether I thought that Netanyahu would feel obliged to retaliate. And I said, probably, yeah, but it's a new ballgame. Well, what we got, in my view, is the kind of retaliation that the Israelis and the Americans can say, aha, we fixed the wagons of those Iranians. But it doesn't really matter very much because it did very little damage. All it said is, yeah, we can hit you guys too, and we can and we will. But if that's it, if that's the sum and substance of the retaliation, then for the first

time, it seems to me, the Israeli leaders are listening to the cautions from Washington. Maybe there was a bargain. Maybe we said, okay, we promise to veto any resolution approving a membership in the UN for Palestine. Okay, we'll do that. But please, do limited damage to Iran. Actually, you can't do too much damage without our help. We're not in it this time. And that, I find, was a hopeful sign. Larry, what is your theory? Explain your theory, please, of some intelligence involvement in this that went wrong.

Or maybe it went the way they wanted it to go yeah the this was um i i call this theater political theater um because the the uh strident kind of announcements that were being made on u.s media media with, you know, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, even, you know, the regular channels. Oh, my God. And what's being reported in the Washington Post and the New York Times, the reporting is that, man, Israel hit Iran. And Iran's looking around and going, there was nothing there.

So, and in fact, to that point, as of like last night, they were providing real world video of the airbase that was supposedly hit. Now, remember when Israel said, oh, those ballistic missiles didn't hit our airbase? At no time have they allowed any news crews to go out and with cameras, videotape those airfields to prove what they said. Iran had no problem proving that. Hey, here you are, look, nothing. No smoke, no people running around in panic. So it's very likely that there were,

there could have been some negotiations behind the scenes and said, okay, well, we will help Israel carry out this quadcopter token demonstration. But you'll have a complete heads up and can take it out, which they did. We do know that prior to Iran's strike on Israel, that Bill Burns met with his Iranian, his Iranian counterpart in Oman. And they sort of worked out the details of what Iran was and wasn't going to do or what the United States could and could not live with.

So there's been a lot of that behind the scenes. This leaves Bibi in a really difficult situation back in Israel because, you know, even Ben-Gavir in Tamar is saying, boy, that was lame. You know, it makes Israel look really weak. But I think Ray may be on to something that this could be a good sign that there are some interventions behind the scenes by Russia, by China, trying to keep this from getting out of control because it could get out of control very easily.

Ray, does Iran have a nuclear weapon? No. How many times has Bibi claimed that they do, and that's the supposed justification for his belligerence toward them. 658 times at last count, Judge, including at the UN, of course. You have that famous graphic that you showed last time. Now, as I explained before, this is one time when the intelligence community came through and decided and issued a public statement in November of 2007 saying Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon and has not worked on a nuclear weapon for five years, so do the math. 2002 is when they stopped. Interesting, isn't it? And we say that with unanimity and with high confidence, is the way they put it.

Now, that put the kibosh on Cheney and Bush's idea of striking Iran before they trotted off into the Western sunset and leaving that kind of mess behind. Bush admits that in his memoir. So the Israelis are still saying this. Who says they're wrong? The wishy-washy head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who very rarely says anything worthwhile. But he said yesterday, and he's quoted in the news, he's saying, look, Israel doesn't.

I haven't worked a nuclear weapon. We have inspectors all over that place. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. I'm sorry. Iran doesn't. And so stop saying that Iran does. Now, there's a codicil here that's just a straw in the wind. Let's hear it. A major general, Iranian, who is in charge of these programs has let this thing out that, well, maybe we ought to change our policy. Maybe we need to start working on a nuclear weapon now. Well, that's really up to the Supreme Leader. This is just a straw in the wind, but I the targets that was hit by one of the Iranian ballistic

missiles in Israel was one of the most highly protected places in Israel. In fact, you refer to it as one of the most highly protected places on the planet. What was it? What do you mean? The air defense system? Whatever the ballistic missile hit in Israel, according to Scott, was extremely highly protected, and still this missile got through. Yeah, well, it was the airfield down in the Negev Desert. Remember, I think we talked about this last time. You can actually see, I posted at Sonar 21 a video of the incoming warhead from Iran. And then you can see coming up an Israeli interceptor. And this warhead goes.

Yes, I saw that. I saw that video that you posted. Yeah, so that's what Scott's talking about. That these were not dumb ballistic missiles reacting solely to gravity. They actually could maneuver. And it's not being maneuvered by some kid sitting back in a Barker lounger with a joystick in Tehran. It's actually built into the warhead to evade any kind of incoming threat. So what Scott's point was, and I think it's resonated around some sectors

that need to hear it, is that the United States with Israel had provided a layered air defense system. It's not integrated the same way that the Russian system is with the S-400, S-500 now. But nonetheless, it's layered so you've got as you go up in the atmosphere. And that this Iranian ballistic missile breached all of that. So this system that in theory is supposed to protect facilities or naval ships from a ballistic missile threat failed. That's what was defeated.

That was Scott's point. And hence Ray's point that this was not an assault, it was a message, and the message got through. Yeah, but one other thing, pay careful attention to the shift in the Israeli narrative that took place yesterday. Prior to this, their narrative was, oh, yeah, we shut down 99% of them. Boy, wipe them out. Then yesterday, oh, they were targeting Dimona. They were targeting our nuclear facility, and they caused some damage. When I saw that, I went, huh, they're starting to lay the predicates so that they can attack an Iranian nuclear facility. Okay. I want to switch to Ukraine before we do. I just have to play this clip for you, because this is the Ray McGovern of the British Parliament. Uh-oh.

Letting Prime Minister Sunak have it. Oh. Speaker, I knew your father well for a very long time. He was a fine man, and I am sincerely sorry for your loss. There was not one single word in the Prime Minister's statement of condemnation of the Israeli destruction of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which is the proximate reason for the event everyone is here in concert condemning. He was not even asked to do so by the front bench opposite. Kay Burley is the only person so far to demand that of a government minister.

We have no treaty with Israel, at least not one that Parliament has been shown. And the Iranians are not likely to listen to him when Britain occupied Iran, looted its wealth and overthrew its one democratic socialist government in my own lifetime. a chynlluniodd ei gwerth a'i gwrthwynebu i'r un Llywodraeth Sociolwyr Democraidd yn fy mhrofiad. Mr Speaker. Mae unrhyw beth y gawes yn digwydd ychydig wythnosau yn ddiweddar, may have happened a few weeks ago. It is absolutely no justification for launching more than 300 drones and missiles from one sovereign state towards Israel. It's as simple as that. And in the honourable gentleman's question, not once did he condemn that action or indeed the actions of Hamas in the region. There is no equivalence between these things whatsoever, and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

Aside from the humor, and aside from the comparison to Ray, although Ray is slim and wiry and athletic, not as beefy as George Galloway, they all have their answers down pat. 300 drones and missiles, and therefore was an overreaction on the part of Ukraine. They must, of Iran. God, I've been slipping all week on that.

They must think we're stupid. We all have. They must think we're stupid if we buy that nonsense. I know, but sometimes stupidity wins the game. Here's Biden saying to Netanyahu and the rest of them, look, you had a win. You knocked the ball down 99%. Take the win and don't do anything really drastic. And so what does Bibi do?

He does something, not really drastic, but something enough to try to appease his right-wing colleagues. Now, whether that works or not, he restrained himself in the first instance. Unless he does something crazier, then I think we're going to say, well, oh, look, there's retaliation, retaliation. We could do this. You could do that. and maybe it will calm down a little bit, and maybe even the Israeli's leaders are starting to listen to Biden. Who knows? Maybe Biden did tell them, look, we're not going to get involved, and if you get involved in a big war, we're not going to supply you with arms anymore. That's a stretch, but we can't

rule that out right now because it's election season here. Biden's losing lots of support. Here's Professor Sachs commenting that Rishi Sunak, of all people, should have sympathy and understanding for the Palestinian people. Rishi Sunak, ironically, you know, of Indian descent. Britain was the imperial power. The British Raj ruled India rather brutally, I might add, leaving millions and millions to die in famines at the end of the 19th century, because this is what laissez-faire is. Leave it alone. They're dying. That's okay. We don't touch it. All right. Switching to Ukraine. Ray just gave us a piece that apparently Foreign Minister Lavrov just gave an interview in which he said that on December 30th, 2021,

Lincoln told him that there would not be offensive missiles put in Ukraine. Do I have this right, Ray? It's not quite right, but it's the main point here. What has been divulged now for the first time is that Lavrov, in an interview with Kalsimorska-Pravda and Sputnik let this little detail out. It has to do with when he met with Blinken on the 21st of January 2022. Okay. Oh, he's referencing the meeting between Biden and Putin or the communication. Okay. Right. So what Blinken is saying to Lavrov, remember what Biden told your boss Putin on the 30th of December? Remember when Biden, half asleep, I guess, said, we have no intention to put offensive strike missiles in Ukraine. Remember that? Well, Lovett officers,

of course, I remember that. Blinken says, well, you know, that was just a slip of the tongue. We don't buy that. We're going to put, we reserve the right to put offensive missiles in Ukraine. Now, as you know, they're already in placements in Romania and in Poland, and they can accommodate missiles that can hit Russia when they become hypersonic missiles. Five minutes right now, about seven to nine minutes. And Putin himself warned his military staff at the end of actually was the 21st of December 2021, look, these missiles are there in Poland and Romania. We got to have an agreement to limit them. And his military staff, in my view, said, agreements, agreements, you better talk to Biden and get a personal commitment. and he did on the 30th of December. And Biden said, we have no intention of putting

offensive strike missiles in Ukraine. The 9th and the 10th of January, our negotiators met with Russian negotiators in Geneva. They had no instructions to pursue this promise by Biden. And then on the 21st, so three weeks after Biden pretty much promised not to do this, Blinken is telling Lavrov, according to Lavrov today, look, forget about it. We never promised not to put offensive strike missiles in Ukraine. We feel free to do that. Besides that, we're not going to even talk about denying NATO membership to Ukraine. So that's how it went down in January of 2022, a month before the special military operation. Larry, how bad off is Ukraine? And what, if anything, will the 61 billion that

it now appears the House of Representatives is going to vote on succeed in accomplishing? I'm not sure why some people are expressing surprise that this is going to pass. I've been saying for two months that it was going to pass because, one, it's an election year. Two, the vast majority of the money is not going overseas. It's going to the military-industrial complex. They're going to both replenish U.S. stockpiles. That's part of it. And then it says it's going to give money to Ukraine to buy U.S. weapons.

Well, that money is not going to Kiev. It's going directly into the pockets of Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Rockwell. So just people need to stop, wake up and recognize the political grift that is Washington, D.C. It's all about the money. The money stays here and flows around. Even if, let's just, in a magical world, even if you could go over and give $61 billion, just pile it up on Zelensky's desk and, you know, keep him from buying cocaine with it. All right. And then make him spend it upon the military over there right away. Either, you know, paying people off to come join. It's not going to make a bit of difference on the battlefield,

not a bit of difference, because let's say it was used to recruit new troops. Great. They're not going to be ready to do anything from a combat perspective for eight, nine months if they're properly trained. If they're just given a uniform, shown a gun, and, you know, a pat on the ass, they're useless. They're dead. So that's not going to change. It's not going to make airplanes magically appear that are piloted by competent pilots.

It's not going to suddenly manufacture air defense systems because both the United States and Europe are really struggling to produce and sustain production of their existing air defense systems. So this is just a lot of magical things going on out there. How much longer can Ukraine last, in your view, Ray? It all depends on what Putin decides to do. Now, what's really remarkable— Let me just stop you. Interesting. It all depends on what Putin decides to do. Now, what's really remarkable... Let me just stop you. Interesting. It all depends on what Putin decides to do,

not on what the United States Congress decides to do. Well, Larry's got it quite right. Whatever would be able to come... And, you know, it's very, very odd that the President of the United States would be writing op-eds for the Wall Street Journal. You know, common people don't read the Wall Street Journal, but the people who make the weapons do. And, you know, what Biden says just yesterday, lead op-ed, okay? Look, if Congress passes this vital military aid for Ukraine,

we're not going to write a blank check. We'll send military equipment from our own stockpiles and then use the money authorized by Congress to replenish those stockpiles by buying from American suppliers. That includes Patriot missiles from Made in Arizona, Javelin missiles made in Alabama, artillery shells made in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas. We'll be investing in America's industrial base, buying American products and creating American jobs in 40 states. That's what this is all about. Here's the Secretary of State this morning in Capri, Italy. Cut number seven, Chris. Admitting as much.

This money and everything it will provide is urgently needed by Ukraine, by its people who are so bravely defending their country and defending their democracy. Second, as I said, we have European and other partners, including in Asia, who are doing so much themselves to help provide for Ukraine. And finally, virtually all of the summer battle will be invested in the United States, in defense production, in our own defense industrial base. And that means good jobs in the United States.

Wow. Virtually all of it will be invested in the United States. Do we have, Larry, equipment and ammunition on the shelf just to send there, sitting around? No. It's like old mother Hubbard, the cupboards are bare, you know, not even a bone for the dog. You saw what happened up in Pennsylvania. I think it was Pennsylvania the other day. One of the facilities is supposed to produce 155 millimeter artillery shells. It was set on fire and they had an accident. Now, some were suggesting it could have been sabotaged. No, just when you got people that aren't used to working like this

and they're being pressed to work harder and faster, and you cut corners on safety, you get a fire like that. And what's remarkable here, Judge, is that the United States that existed in 1941, 1942, an industrial colossus, one that the Japanese, I think Admiral Yamamoto referred to, we have awakened a sleeping giant. That sleeping giant doesn't exist anymore. We've become more like mini-me, where we don't have that industrial prowess. We're not producing tanks at any kind of output that would make a difference anywhere on the battlefield.

We're struggling. I think right now we can produce a total of 250, 275 missiles for the Patriot a year. Okay? Each one has like 20 in them when they fire them off. It's taken. Basically, the production rate in the United States is they can make one a day. They're hoping, though, by next year, they'll be able to maybe do one and a half a day. If this didn't involve the kinds of human carnage we're witnessing on the ground in Ukraine and in places like the Gaza Strip, it would be hilarious.

But it's not. It is the most macabre type of humor. Judge, let me pitch in here and endorse what Larry just said. But to just probe a little deeper and say, what does this mean? Why is it that we have no 155 millimeter howitzer shells? I mean, I used to train on them, for God's sake. That was 100 years ago. Basic, basic. Well, the basic reason is because there was no fear that the Russians would do anything,

anything in Central Europe until we provoked them by mounting a coup in Ukraine. Now, it took several years to figure out, well, the Russians are serious now, but we were completely unprepared. So are NATO colleagues. And they were unprepared because they thought that Russia was no threat and that after Ukraine, Russia would not possibly go farther, like they're saying now. It's all cockamamie stuff. They judged the Russian threat for what it was with Putin in power. They provoked the Russian bear, and now they're unprepared to deal with it.

That's the long and short of it. Larry, the funny thing about when Ray says he did something 100 years ago is that the audience believes him. Yeah, yeah. Thanks a lot, Josh. Thanks a lot. We'll end our Friday roundtable, and we'll end our week on that note. Thank you, Josh. Thanks a lot. We'll end our Friday roundtable and we'll end our week on that note. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for all of your insight and all of your patience. We'll see you both, as usual, Monday morning. Have a great weekend.

Thank you, Jeff. Thanks. Thank you. We expect to have all of your favorites, all of your regulars next week. Have a great weekend, everybody. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.