Judging Freedom - Larry Johnson: NATO Playing with Fire.

Episode Date: April 7, 2025

Larry Johnson: NATO Playing with Fire.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

you Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, April 7th, 2025. Larry Johnson joins us now. Larry, always a pleasure. You had a fascinating piece over the weekend about NATO playing with fire. But before we get there to issues that are happening as we speak, as we speak, Prime Minister Netanyahu is in the White House speaking with President Trump. Trump will be surrounded by arch-Zionists.

I don't think anybody there will dare to express an alternate view. Both Trump and Netanyahu have very serious problems at home, self-inflicted. Netanyahu's are criminal, Trump's are economic. What do you expect to come out of this meeting today? Is it going to be the old when all else fails, we go to war? Well, I think one of the issues on the agenda is what the United States plans to do with Iran. And, you know, I know there's still a lot of disagreement. And this is one of those areas where I hope

and pray I am wrong. Everybody can come back and say, see, Johnson, you blew it. But I think Trump is absolutely serious about following through on his threat to attack Iran, and will do so in tandem with Israel. So I think that's one of the issues is just basically to do a do a double check to say, see if a Israel still on board for that and maybe hoping that Israel might have some other information that the United States doesn't have. I I think there's also

maybe some concern that they're not gonna voice this in public. But just as the United States is finding that there are limits to its military power in Yemen, the Israelis are finding that they've got limitations on their military power in terms of being able to bring an end to the, let's call it the Palestinian uprising. Israel is suffering a war of attrition that is costing it not only economically, but it's also costing the lives of soldiers.

Now, they're not as many Israelis that died by, in comparison to the number of Palestinians that they've murdered. But they're still now running into issues where reservists, because it is a largely reserve force, they're not showing up. They're staying away, staying at home. So they may also be talking about that, what they

can do to help each other. Well, do you think that the Trump and Netanyahu contemplate a land war or just a strategic attack on, excuse me, pardon me, Iran's leadership or its air defenses? I don't think they're that crazy to talk about contemplating a ground invasion either of Iran or Yemen. That was in the news last night. Reportedly, that the US is beginning to think that the only way they can stop the Yemenis from, the Houthis from firing missiles at ships and into Israel is a ground invasion. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but what would be required for that to happen would impose such a cost on the United States, both in terms of having to recruit, train more manpower to boost the army, because right now the army's 450,000 and candidly if you're going to quote invade Yemen to bring it under control you'd probably need at least 1.5-2

million troops. Well let's talk about the reason, the reasons given to the American public for any kind of war with Iran. The United States intelligence assessment says that as of 2007, Iran has not been working on a nuclear weapon. Presumably the Mossad agrees with that. Who knows what they're telling Netanyahu, if he wants to believe in his own mind. What conceivable a threat does Iran pose to the United States? None. What threat does it even pose to Iran? Does Iran pose to Israel? Yeah, well, from the US standpoint, they see Iran as the primary supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah. supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah. Now that relationship particularly with Hezbollah has changed over the years. Hezbollah became more independent, more

capable of financing itself and not being dependent upon money out of Iran. The way the story is told in the West consistently through the State Department, my old office, and it's now called the Bureau of Counterterrorism, is that Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world. And it's, Judge, that's simply just not true. It's not objectively true. When you go through and look at over the last 25 years, the groups that we have accused of carrying out terrorist attacks that have actually killed Americans, taken American lives, are Sunni. They're groups that in fact Iran has been fighting, like Iran was in Syria fighting ISIS, along with ISIS and Al-Qaeda, you know, two different types of vanilla ice cream, if you will. So

at no point has Iran been this major sponsor of terrorism as we proclaim it. They have been a major supporter of the rights of the Palestinian people to have their own state. And so to that extent, they become a convenient enemy. But right now, I think the broader strategic vision from the United States, they got to get a regime in place in Iran that's friendly to the United States because the current cooperation between Iran and Russia is one that prevents us, the United States, from destroying Russia. It prevents us, the United States, from destroying Russia. Russia's economic relationship with Iran and its military relationship, which now goes back at least seven years, it creates that north-south transport corridor coming out of Russia.

So now Russia would no longer be dependent upon having to try to get out of the Baltic Sea or the Black Sea through sort of very narrow straits. This gives it an alternative route where it can't be destroyed economically. And in fact, I think it was pointed out in another conversation that during World War II, the very beginning when supplies were having to be taken into Russia by the lend-lease and other US support, a lot of them went through Iran up through the caucus into Russia. So the United States is looking at this more as if we can block Russian access through Iran to the Arabian Sea, if we can block Russian access through Iran to the Arabian Sea,

then we've got Russia's surroundings. Well, what do you think would happen if the United States and Israel attacked Iran? Will Russia and China just sit idly by? No, Russia will come. When you go, I did a thorough analysis of the agreement that was signed between Russia and Iran between projeski and Putin in fact, I think you remember on October 27th when

Israel attacked Iran Iran didn't retaliate after that and You know a lot of people scratched their heads puzzled by it. I think the reason they didn't retaliate is because they were in the detailed negotiations with the Russians about signing that comprehensive security agreement. And I think Iran made the proper wise choice that it was better to forego an immediate retaliation at that point, get this agreement with Russia in place because that agreement does, despite what some people say, it does commit Russia in the event that Iran is

unjustly attacked and attacked in a way that under Article 51 would then have the right of self-defense that in the event of that Russia will Fight on behalf of Iran. He doesn't say doesn't say we'll fight but that's I checked this With with a Russian diplomat you and I both know I shared my peace with And so that in my off base And he came back. He said the Russian diplomat you and I both know. I shared my piece with him and said, am I off base? And he came back and he said, nope, you're on target. So because that agreement also then deals with military cooperation, it deals with intelligence cooperation, it deals with diplomatic cooperation, it specifically addresses the North-South transport corridor.

So it's a comprehensive arrangement of a long-term partnership, if you will, between Russia and Iran. Now, on the diplomatic front, Russia is going to do everything in its power to try to defuse a U.S.-Israeli attack. And I think part of that is sending the message that if you attack them, you're going to be dealing with us. I don't know if you had a chance to watch my conversation with Alistair Crook this morning, but he's of the view that the demands that President Trump has made on Iran are so extreme that if complied with it would be a surrender of their sovereignty. So why would he make demands that he knows cannot be met unless he's looking for an excuse for war, either to, I guess, to please Netanyahu. There's no other reason for America attacking Iran whatsoever. Maybe Netanyahu and Lindsey Graham.

Well, no, actually I think that I think his real reason. Remember, Joe Biden didn't say a thing about bricks. You know, never mentioned it. Trump early on, even before taking office, after he was elected, talked about the threat of bricks and made threats to any country that dared to try to use some alternative currency from the US dollar. Now, all of that goes, I think you can tie all of that back into this current tariff, the snafu that's underway, that Trump recognizes that if Iran and Russia open up that corridor, that that's going to strengthen Iran.

It makes them independent of U.S US sanctions in a way. So going after Iran on an economic front, I think if anything, the nuclear issue's being used as the excuse because everybody understands, hey, a nuclear bomb, that's a threat, we gotta get rid of that. Trying to explain the economic strategic position, that's a tougher message to sell. I know you're not privy, or I assume you're not privy to what Masad tells Netanyahu, but

isn't it likely that if the American intelligence community has unanimously concluded that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon, that Masad has come to the same conclusion? Well, I'm not sure the US intelligence community has come to a unanimous but Voting the youngster who proceeds precedes you on this show and with whom you appear on Friday afternoon Yeah, yeah. Well the reason I say not unanimous I I'm pretty sure there are some analysts somewhere in the in the bowels of whether DIA D or CIA who may hold a different view. But it raised correct that the published position

of the intelligence community, which is done under now the auspices of the DNI, yes, stipulates they don't have a nuclear weapon. I'm not sure Massad would say, share that perspective. They may, you know, if an objective about it, they would conclude that the combination of the fatwa and then this recently concluded agreement between Russia and Iran, because remember, one of the things that they signed on to was non-proliferation. Iran was agreeing with Russia to non-proliferate.

There's no way Russia would sign an agreement with Iran if they knew that Iran was working on a nuclear warhead. No way. And as part of that, if Iran starts working on a nuclear warhead to proliferate that would then invalidate this this agreement. Got it. I don't see Iran taking that risk. Terrific analysis Larry. Larry what did the US accomplish by bombing Yemen for two weeks?

Boost the stock price of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman. That's about it. The story that came out of CNN yesterday, and I'd say consider the source, but they're saying that the US officials and the Trump administration are complaining about God This is cost us, you know, we've only been doing this less than a month and it's already cost us a billion dollars Duh, no kidding They are Recognizing that you know, I think the Trump people

Naively started off believing all we got to do is just use a lot more bombs and Biden and his team That'll bring the Yemeni Yemenis to heel and the Houthis will surrender Well that hasn't happened and they're finding that Not only are you know, the basic problem is these missiles are mobile So let's say you've got an intelligence collection platform where you can see a missile. Oh, it's here at the corner of walk and don't walk. Okay, we got to hit it now. So you got to go through the bureaucracy.

The information has to be passed up the chain. Somebody has to give the order. That order has to filter down. And you get to the place where the actual, you're going to launch a jet or you're going to launch a cruise missile. You know, what I'm talking about is time passes. It's likely that the quickest

that you could get something like that done might be in an hour or two. I guarantee you was as soon as the Houthis shoot, they scoot, it goes off and man, they move. Well, all of a sudden you're blowing up rock desert And and that that's making Trump frustrated. It's making Pete Hagseth frustrated This is it made Lloyd Austin frustrated. So the only thing the United States has accomplished is

creating a new demand for more MQ 9 has accomplished is creating a new demand for more MQ-9 reaper drones, because the Huthis reportedly have shot down 17 of them at $30 million a pop, which means almost a half a billion, a little more than a half a billion dollars have been dropped out of the sky by these Huthis. And the folks who are going to make that predator, well, they're going to get more orders. So that's, they're doing well, but the United States is demonstrating

that we're not as powerful as we like to think we are. Switching gears, are, is NATO poking the bear? Well, they've been poking the bear for the entire, you know, 37, 38, now 38 months of the special military operation. You referred to them as playing with fire. What did you mean? Well, they continued to provide ISR, put ISR platforms out into both the Black Sea and the Baltics. And then the intelligence from those platforms is passed to the Ukrainians, which are used to attack targets inside Russia. up in the Baltics that the there have been. It's like you froze, Larry, I guess you're still there. All right. We'll wait for Larry to read to reconnect with us.

Crystal area. All right, you're mentioning the Baltics. Yeah, so in their efforts to try to contain the Russians, just the other day there were some French ships, French aircraft near a Russian ship. The Russians turned on electronic warfare that basically wiped out their navigation systems. And the French had to navigate by geographic landmarks to get back to the base.

They got out of there quick. So the Russians right now, I think, over the previous 36 months prior to February, they ignored, you know, they were not willing to necessarily go up and confront. It looks like I think the Russians have now made the decision to be more confrontational with NATO in light of the heated rhetoric coming out of London, of Paris, and out of Germany. Do you think that the United States under Donald Trump would follow Article 5 of NATO literally, meaning if one of these Russian, excuse me, one of these French fighter jets fired on Russians on the ground and the Russians took the fighter jet out, the United States is not going to come to France's defense, or would it?

No, no. Remember, Article 5 also requires that there has to be a meeting. I don't think Trump, I guess Trump could order a US military response, but really it's, it'd have to be the Congress to provide an act of war, because we would be going to war with Russia if we did that. And that applies for actually every one of the NATO countries with the article five just doesn't automatically kick in. They've got to basically vote to say, okay, yeah, we're going to do this. But it is, you know, we're heading into that direction. It's very, you know, when you go back and look at how we got into World War I, it's not logical. You know, it was just people were not making rational, logical decisions. It got emotional.

And that's where we are right now as far as the West dealing with Russia. It's become very emotional. They're not able to step back and say, yeah, as much as we'd like to do something militarily, the fact of the matter is we've exhausted our inventories of critical weapons systems and we don't have a ready-made industrial solution. Here's the Secretary General of NATO, probably not a fan of this show or of Larry Johnson,

but agreeing with you. Cut number eight. We have a problem. The United States part of NATO, Canadian part of NATO, European part of NATO, that we are not producing enough defense industrial product. We are producing in a full year in ammunition what Russia is producing in three months.

Russia has only 5% of NATO economy compared. So we are 20 times bigger, the overall NATO economy than Russia. And Russia is producing four times more in ammunition than the whole of NATO is producing in a year. That's totally crazy. And that's why the president and I discussed and the other senior leaders in the US and I discussed also with European allies that we have not only to ramp up spending, but

also the defense industrial production that includes cutting the red tape both in the US and here in Europe. Is he really talking about production or is he talking about availability because we gave so much away to KIEV? No, both because you know right now the Patriot, there was a limited number of Patriot missile batteries. And the last number I saw that Lockheed could only produce like 550 of them a year, the actual missile. Well, when you realize that every time a Patriot fires at an incoming target,

they're gonna fire a minimum of two missiles. if the Patriots had tried to bring down each one of those 200 missiles, you're talking 400 Patriot missiles in one day. And that's almost 85% of the yearly production in one day. And that's a lot of the time, and that's a lot of the time, that's a lot of the time, that's a lot of the time, that's a lot of the time, that's a lot of the time, talking 400 Patriot missiles in one day. And that's almost 85% of the yearly production in one day.

The same with Highmark's, the same with the Tacops. So the fact of the matter is the US does not have, nor Germany France nor England they do not have intact factories that can ramp up and start producing this. Now General Cavoli, the commander of European the US forces in Europe and also supreme NATO commander said last week in his testimony that Russia right now is producing more artillery shells than NATO and the United States combined, almost three times as many. So it's across the board. Artillery, tanks, armored vehicles, Bradley fighting vehicles, we don't produce those

anymore. Tanks, M1 Abrams, they're not producing brand new tanks, they're taking old tanks that had been already produced and they're refurbishing them. They're in a makeover. So, artillery shells, Patriot missiles, High Mars, attack, you know, down the list list. So as we've used and expended a lot of that armament in Ukraine, they now recognize that they might want to shift the focus to China, but you don't have stockpiles, you don't have warehouses bulging with stockpiles to resupply. And that's the same what the Navy's running into in the Red Sea with the Yemenis. Those destroyers carry these missiles that fire up out of the deck they call vertical launch systems, DLS. And again, there are limited numbers of those. It's not like there's some guy over

there just making, you know, we fire five and he makes ten It's just the opposite. So at least give root of credit. He's he's acknowledging reality Thank you, Larry a pleasure my dear friend no matter what we talk about I really deeply appreciate your analysis look forward to seeing you at the end of the week with Ray. I'll be there Thanks for the invite. Thank you. Of course. All the best, my friend. Coming up at three o'clock this afternoon on all of this, how close are we to war with Iran? We may have an idea by then if President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu have spoken publicly. They're meeting as we speak. But at three o'clock this afternoon on all of this Scott Ritter judge Nepal town for judging freedom You