Judging Freedom - Lt Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: Can Israel Fight Two Wars?

Episode Date: April 3, 2024

Lt Col. Karen Kwiatkowski: Can Israel Fight Two Wars?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. everyone judge andrew napolitano here for judging freedom today is tuesday april 2nd 2024 lieutenant colonel karen kwatkowski joins us now karen, a pleasure. My dear friend, thank you for joining us. Is there any military or legal basis whatsoever for the Israeli destruction of the Iranian consulate adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria, and the murder of seven people in there, including two generals. Not that I know of. And I think in the discussion, maybe not inside of the United States yet, but in the discussion around the world about this, the word taboo is being used to strike an embassy of any kind in any situation is taboo. And so Israel has done this with F-35s that we sent to them and the ammunition that we sent to them. So, you know, immediately the United States said, oh, we didn't know about it in advance,

but this is a criminal act. In any other world, it would be an act of war. I'm not sure what the Israelis are thinking. I think they think they're going to get away with it. Do you think they'll get away with it? We're going to run a clip in a minute of a person analyzing the words and attitudes of the Ukrainian government. But what do you think? Not Ukrainian, forgive me, the Ukrainian government. But what do you think? I mean, not Ukrainian, forgive me, the Iranian government. What do you think?

Iran has a huge population base that has very, very negative feelings about Israel. And now their own property, it is their property, it is their real estate, it is their people, have been killed, murdered. in Iran. That's happened historically. And Iran has been restrained, I guess, for a number of reasons against this kind of thing. But this particular act is being done in a time when Israel is showing its weakness, its weakness of leadership, its weakness of strategy, its really evilness on the battlefield. I mean, this is, I guess Israelis keep saying this is a war of survival for Israel, but everything that they're doing is taking them into a place where Israel does not survive. So it could be a time that Iran would act.

And certainly Iran's allies have seen the same thing Iran is seeing. The whole world is looking at Israel and they're seeing extreme weakness and kind of immorality that even in war, we expect a certain level and we're not seeing that there. So this is all bad for Israel. Here's this analyst. It's a French radio station. The questioner is British. The analyst is American, is English, is just like yours and mine. He has very interesting thoughts on this. We've heard from Iran in the last hour or so, from the president, in fact, saying the attack will not go unanswered. What response could there be, though, from Iran? Well, first of all, I will comment on that wording itself. It's a double negative, right?

Will not go unanswered. You couldn't make that more passive if you could. And that language is deliberate. And what do I mean by deliberate? It's that until now there has been a sort of tug of war on both sides. When I say both sides, Israel and Iran, not to allow one another to get, to take this from a shadow war,

so a so-called sort of covert war between Israel and Iran's proxies into a full-fledged war, which would drag in Israel against Iran and Iran against Israel and its closest ally, the US. So that language itself, I'm not saying it's de-escalatory language, but it's relatively restrained, very diplomatic language, meaning, like I said, Iran's in a delicate position.

If, as it says, this is a diplomatic compound, Iranian territory that was struck, it has to, for both domestic and for its own proxies in the region, to be seen as responding and responding strongly. At the same time, it is extremely wary, as Hezbollah's commander, Nasrullah, has made clear, of being dragged into a convict, into an all-out, full-fledged convict. Exercising restraint seems to still be the operative, the modus operandi in this type of clash. But the question is, at what point are the circumstances of the strike such that when he says not go unanswered, it means that perhaps they will have a very decisive, as they said yesterday, and very firm

response, more so than we've seen in the past? What do you think, Colonel? Decisive? Restrained? Nothing? What do you think Iran will do? Do they run the risk of escalating this and dragging the United States in? Do they fall into Netanyahu is trying to goad a larger war and to kind of force issues and force actions and force allies to make decisions. I think there's something to that. And if that's what Netanyahu is doing in this, the Iranians would know this better than I would and maybe better than a lot of Americans would. They study Israel. Their intelligence is focused on Israel. They have many contacts that are constantly assessing Israeli intentions and actions and capabilities. So it's possible we'll see, this is going to sound weird, but both. We may see a restrained approach that is going to make Israel even more vulnerable and more angry and lose even more national judgment. And then when Israel is properly weakened to see some sort of serious response. And I think at this time too, because of what's happening in Gaza and because of the way Israel has conducted itself, well, we've said this before, they've united former enemies all around them and alienated all the neighbors that they had

made relationships with, Egypt and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, all of these countries that had made behaving, I think they realize it, and they need action now. And I do think there's a sense of trying to push something to happen. If Iran is smart, they will actually be restrained as they prepare for something that I don't think Israel has seen before. Do you think that Netanyahu's goal was to goad or provoke Iran? So it strikes Israel, and then the next thing you know, there's 10,000 U.S. Marines on the ground. It would not be surprising if that was the case, and not just Netanyahu, but a number of past Israeli prime ministers and leaders have played this game of goading. And I know we all remember, you know, the Marine barracks in Beirut early on in Reagan's campaign. The neocons in

Washington demanded that the United States respond by pouring troops in to fight Israel's war as a result of this loss of American life. And Reagan resisted that. And they were very upset with him. I don't think he ever forgave him for that. But there's a long history of provocation to engage in a war that really Americans will fight for them. And of course, our history in the Middle East is one of having others fight wars that the Americans want. Israel certainly, you know, we act like Israel pulls all our strings. Well, they do pull quite a bit. They're very closely connected to our government in many ways. It's hard to say who, which tail wags what dog, but Israel serves a purpose for the United States and has for a long time. And it serves as

our proxy combatant in the region. So we have a very, you know, we're in trouble too. The United States is in big danger here and we don't have a statesman type of leader. We don't have a wise Iranian government. We don't have a Putin who is in a seat of power, unchallenged, and knows history and can remember it. We don't have that in the United States. We have neocons with no wartime experience, and we have basically an obsolete president that can't remember what he signs from one day to the next. Don't we have a foreign policy controlled by the military industrial complex and the Israeli lobby? Oh, I think that's the data shows that. I mean, our military policy, and I think other countries have made this point, and some in America have made this point.

It is a defense strategy that is oriented around how do these defense companies profit the most? How do they gain the most investment and how do they profit from that investment? And it's why we have very, very expensive but non-performing systems in all of the services, because that's where the profit is. The maintenance of old and obsolete systems, there's profit there. So our defense strategy, which is really an offensive strategy, is a strategy of lining pockets. That's how it's set up. I mean, maybe it wasn't set up that way, but it certainly has evolved in that way. Now, in terms of Israel's influence over our government, both the defense industrial and

intelligence establishment, but also our politics in general, that's very clear. And I think the Israelis have done nothing to refute it. In fact, they celebrate it. They know that they have a great deal of influence over our politics, and they exercise that as part of their national security strategy. Unless something unexpected happens, that's not going to change. Either Joe Biden gets reelected and it stays the same or Donald Trump goes in and with respect to Israel, it would probably be Biden on steroids, given his comments about the Israelis and the Jewish people. Yeah. The only, the only advantage to Trump in this, it's very limited here, is that Trump understands that war is not a moneymaker and the Democrats and the neocons don't understand that. They think war is good for business. Actually,

a real estate guy like Trump understands, you know, war is, is unnecessary destruction and you don't want that. So he would be a person who would certainly side with Israel, but with an aim to development and profit. None of that addresses the morality of the situation. None of it addresses the racism of Zionism. None of it addresses the situation of basically millions of people. and none of it really makes peace in the Middle East. So Trump has a big challenge. I agree that war is destructive. It does not help the economy. I think that Trump probably agrees, but Trump is also in favor of from the ocean or from the river to the sea. He'll encourage, help, and pay for the Israelis to the sea he'll encourage help and pay for the israelis to finish their destruction of

the palestine of the palestinian homeland i agree you know on the other hand here we'll run a clip of tony blinken you tell me chris the one we just ran uh with him with the uh french foreign minister you tell me if this is even credible. Here's what he said earlier today in Paris. We also agree that we have to find a path to a durable, lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike. And we both agree that ultimately that has to include the establishment of a Palestinian state with necessary security guarantees for Israel.

Joachim must know that that is not going to happen. Why does he keep preaching that? Does that give them some kind of cover with the Democratic voters in Michigan? Well, of course. And I mean, anybody, I mean, I used to years ago, 20 years ago, I used to think we believed in this country that that was what the goal was, to a two-state system, independent state for the Palestinians who were there. But I have come to realize, and certainly Blinken is far more exposed to the reality of this policy than I am. And I know that we do not. This is not an American policy.

And I think you can tell it the kind of way that even talks about it. It's like this is a throwaway line. I have to say this. This is the mantra that we use in the State Department. It means nothing, but I have to say it. And they have to say it because they have no alternative. We really have a dearth of innovation and historical intelligence. We don't have that in the State Department. We have pure politics. And for the most part, when it comes to Blinken, we are talking Israeli politics. I mean, he brings nothing else to the table. If Iran strikes back at Israel and this war expands, do you expect any other state actors in the region to enter the fray against Israel? Or are they all terrified of American jets and drones? It's a hard question. And I have to say, I am a little suspect of things like the Baltimore, the Francis Scott Key Bridge, okay?

And trapping military logistics ships inside of that harbor, among other things. That kind of thing speaks to me of American vulnerability. Surely an accident, but could something like that happen on a larger scale here in the United States? Are we exposed? Are we weak? Absolutely. So if America is weak and it has terrible leadership, which we do, and is preoccupied with an election this year which we are and then you have Israel which is overextending itself losing population certainly has a division in its own society about what it is that they're doing now is the time and we have the unity of many of Israel's neighbors against it now would would be the time, not now today in five minutes, but

soon would be the time to take a definitive action. That's what I would be thinking about doing if I was in a position of power there. Now, obviously nobody wants war, but Israel has made war and they're making war. They've widened the war already, north, east and south. I mean, it's not just about Gaza. It's been made very clear. And Israel has acknowledged that they have, the Arab militaries, the Iranian militaries, they're not the militaries of 20 years ago. You know, just like Russia is not, does not have the military it had 20 years ago. We don't either, but ours has gone downhill. And these other militaries have gained in capability and certainly gained in the knowledge of Israeli and American tactics over the past two decades or three decades. It's not a good situation to be in. The Speaker of the House, who is a Christian nationalist who believes that God the Father

designated this land from the river to the sea for the modern day Jewish state is also trying to put together some sort of a package. It doesn't seem to be working so far, but, you know, these there's no limit to their ability to compromise some sort of a package with respect to getting 61 billion in the hands of Vladimir Zelensky. You know, he's not going to get 61 billion. He's going to get about 10. The rest is going to go directly to the American military industrial complex. Is there anybody who still thinks that Ukraine can win this war? You know, in my world, there isn't. But I have to tell you, I talked with my brother-in-law just yesterday. And we were talking politics, of course, because you have to be

careful. But he very much supports Ukraine. He believes that Ukraine can defeat Russia. And I explained to him a few things that I know and how that was not really based in any type of fact. It was highly unlikely to happen. And I reminded him of the corruption of the Ukrainian state. I didn't even go into the whole Nazi ideology of the Ukrainian state. That's another issue. And this is not information that many Americans know. Was he surprised at what you told him because he doesn't see it in the Washington Post or the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal? I think he was surprised. And I pointed out that some of what I'm telling him has been reported in the New York Times recently.

But he is caught up with the dogma of Ukraine as a freedom fighting country, fighting for liberty, fighting for democracy. I pointed out to him that the war started a long time ago and they had been bombing the Donbass, Kiev and the Ukrainian military, killing Russians for quite a long time and not abiding by the Minsk Treaty. And that even the German chancellor who signed it disavowed this treaty. It's just a tool to fool the Russians. And he had not heard these things. And I don't think it changed his mind. So because there is, in America particularly, we love an underdog, and we love this idea of freedom, even though it's increasingly constrained here, and we don't even recognize that it is. But we love those ideas. And I think that propaganda sold by the United States government and its handmaiden in the media has really convinced a lot of people.

But when you combine it to the fact that our country is going broke, something that he is extremely aware of, as an example of an American who is, you know, he's a lawyer, so he pays some attention to things. He was, he does understand that these things are not, that the money is not unlimited. He understands that throwing money at a problem very often does not work. So that's where he is. So I don't know. But for me, it should be over soon. If Zelensky doesn't want to talk to Putin, then we need to get somebody who will talk to Putin and stop this before there is no Ukraine left. Ukraine really don't love it at all because they're willing to support its complete elimination as a state, as a functional state. I don't get that. Do you think the attack on the Krokus concert hall right outside of Moscow is a turning point? I mean, the Kremlin redefined the military activity in Ukraine from a special military operation to a war. And the foreign minister said he believes Ukraine, Great Britain

and the United States were involved. Yeah. It doesn't surprise me at all. That was my first thought. And I based that on past evidence of past acts and murders and acts of terrorism deep in Russian territory, acts of terrorism that the United States intelligence has assisted in, that UK intelligence and NATO intelligence has assisted in and provided the weapons and the money to do, the encouragement to do. I base it on the words that both our own diplomats have said, Victoria Nuland as an example, but also public figures in Ukraine, I forget the guy, the intelligence guy, is very much supportive of these kinds of acts. So it didn't surprise me. And talking about General Budanov, the head of Ukraine intelligence. Sure. And his associates, his people that he works with are very proud of this. So to me, it makes perfect sense. And the ISIS-K thing, the timing of the United States reaction that tells you everything you need to know. This is something that they're worried about

in being blamed because, you know, we already have a proxy war with Russia. We only have two weapons. I mean, one set of weapons that we can fight each other with, and that's a nuclear war. So if that's what they want, and I don't think, I don't think they do. I don't think Washington wants that. And I know that Russia does not want that, but that's where we're at. So the United States diplomats have a lot of work to do, a lot of backpedaling. And Brussels, an expert on Russia, is on international TV all over the place explaining his view of the attack on that concert. The Russians are saying that the Ukrainians proceeded with a terror attack against the objections of the United States because it had lost its rationale. It was supposed to take place before the elections. Instead, the Ukrainians staged to take place before the elections. Instead, the Ukrainians staged it one week after the elections. And there is a point of dispute. But when you say that the

Russians are accusing Ukraine, I think it's missing the bigger issue. The Russians are accusing the United States and Great Britain. And that puts us in a situation as critical as we were in the worst days of the Cuban Missile Crisis. What do you think? Yeah, I think that's very close to what the reality is. And people need to wake up to that. There are solutions to all of these conflicts. There are solutions to them. And apparently the United States is not capable. Our leadership is not capable of even imagining those solutions. And NATO is not capable intellectually of imagining those solutions.

So the rest of us will get to pay for the really bad leadership that we have in the West. Well, we always pay for that bad leadership, Karen. Yeah. Yes, we do. Karen Kwiatkowski, a pleasure, my dear friend. It was great to chat with you. Thank you very much for your time and for your thoughtfulness.

We'll see you again soon. Okay. See you, Judge. Sure. All the best. Coming up at four o'clock Eastern, Aaron Matei on the assault in Moscow, on the latest in Gaza and the military and political,

this is Aaron's word, boondoggle that Netanyahu has created for himself. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Altyazı M.K.