Judging Freedom - Matt Hoh: Can Israel Fight Iran Alone?

Episode Date: April 23, 2024

Matt Hoh: Can Israel Fight Iran Alone?See 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 Tuesday, April 23rd, 2024. Our dear friend Matt Ho joins us now. Matt, thank you very much for your time. Always appreciated. In your view, can Israel successfully fight Iran alone? No, no. We've seen the answer to that already, Judge. And, you know, of course, thank you for having me back on. No, I mean, again, we've seen that answer already. What is the answer that we've seen? Well, the defense of Israel that occurred last week from those 330 Iranian missiles and drones, at least by half, came from U.S. and allied forces, not from Israel.

And the estimates are that the United States Air Force and Navy shot down more than half of the missiles and drones that the Iranians fired at Israel. So you have a forward defense by the American Air Force, along with allied air forces like Britain, the French, the Jordanians, plus the acquiescence of multiple nations throughout the region where the U.S. and the British and the French aircraft and missile systems are based. Plus, it gets deeper than that because you have Israel incorporated into the overall theater warfare system that the United States operates in the Middle East. So all of the radars, all the satellites, sensors, airborne warning aircraft, all those things, Israel is a part of that network, right? So it's just not American F-15s shooting down Iranian drones. It's all the integrated capabilities of all those nations

that Israel has to defend itself. And so there's no way that Israel could do it on its own. It also doesn't have the defense base to do so. While many of the Israeli missile defense systems are manufactured by the Israelis, it came with a lot of support from the Americans, plus other aspects of the IDF, as we've seen with this genocide in Gaza, are incapable of operating without the full and continuous daily support of the American military, the American intelligence community, as the community, as well as, you know, various other aspects of the American military industrial complex. You have told us, along with many of your colleagues who come on the show weekly, as you do, that Israel survives by instilling fear, fear of its vaunted military in its neighbors. Is that a myth?

Well, I mean, certainly, well, one, Israel is a nuclear power, and they are genocidal maniacs. So the idea of going tit for tat with genocidal maniacs with nuclear weapons is something that gives every nation pause. That is a real deterrent. Do you want to get to the point where the Israelis decide that they are justified in using a nuclear weapon, not just for military means, but for political means, and that they feel that they will have the United States supporting them. Does anyone really think that if Israelis use an atomic weapon against the Iranians, that the United States Congress is going to do anything about it? They'll probably pass a resolution celebrating it. So, I mean, the deterrence of the Israelis is real. However, they have run into this aspect of the fact that other nations are tired of their place in that Middle East. And that exhaustion comes not from the fact that they're Jewish or from the fact that there's some type of religious war going on, but it's because of Israel's behavior, because of what Israel has

done for decades, as well as overall the larger American empire. But certainly to your point, Judge, the Israeli military does have a capability, but as we're seeing, it has been, is running up against serious opposition, both through an alliance of nations, an alliance of powerful, competent, organized, well-resourced militaries, whether they're the Iranians or whether they're the Yemenis, whether they're Hezbollah in Lebanon, right? Or, you know, I mean, so they are up against something that is much greater than anything they've faced before, at least in our lifetime. I mean, my lifetime, I was born in 73.

So at least since the war of 73, say. So this is something that the Israelis have to really come to grips with, that they are up against a united opposition that is tired of what they have been doing, what the Israelis have been doing, are sickened by the genocide, and they feel compelled to act in some way. And right now, the biggest deterrence Israelis have, of course, is their nuclear weapons. But you get to the point where at what point do these nations acquire nuclear weapons? Certainly, the Iranians be the first ones to consider. It'd be relatively, I think, not easy, but for the Iranians to drop their resistance to having a nuclear weapon because of some very legitimate national security concerns they have,

that's something that could occur, as well as possibly seeing the Saudis get nuclear weapons, the Turks get nuclear weapons, maybe the Egyptians. We've talked about this before. Why wouldn't you, Judge, if you and I were in leadership roles, national security roles in any of those countries, after witnessing this, seeing what Israel has

done and recognizing that that is Israel's main deterrent and it's deterring you from acting to do anything to protect the Palestinian people, let alone protect your own self-interest, why would you not then pursue nuclear weapons? Exasperated by the fact that the United States has destroyed in its support of Israel, any degree of international order, any respect for international law, any ability of any international institutions to serve any real function. So now if you are these nations, why would you not want a nuclear weapon? Because what other options might you have to ensure your place in the order in that region, as well as to deter Israel's most formidable capabilities? tit for tat thing that we saw over the weekend, although what the runnings did was serious, they did get through. If formal hostilities broke out, can you envision that some of the state

actors, maybe Saudi Arabia, maybe the Emiratis would say to the US, you're not using our airspace and you're not coming on our land? I think so, Judge. I think what these nations have been put into, the rulers of these nations, monarchs for the most part, is this very difficult position between wanting to placate the American empire, right? Receive the benefits of being a good vassal of the American empire. You know, all the benefits of that, money, the prestige of being allied with the US, having four-star American generals pick up your phone call, that kind of thing, with the very real sentiments of their people. And so their people are witnessing this genocide. They've witnessed the abuse of the Israelis for decades. They've witnessed the

abuse of the Americans for decades. And now they're going to, these rulers have to contemplate whether or not are my people going to, what are they going to do if I go along with the Americans? What are they going to do if I go along with the Israelis? And is this enough to cause a crack, to cause an opening into tensions that already exist in my country? For the most part, these monarchs have all experienced threats to their sovereignty. They've all experienced coups, have all experienced various rebellions that have been quite bloody and have come close to succeeding. So these are not people who don't have a history of having to deal with their internal population attempting to overthrow them. So I think the American empire know, the American empire, once again,

has put nations into a very dangerous position, a very delicate position. And of course, right, we'll refer back to the late warmonger, Henry Kissinger, who at least got this right. It's dangerous to be an American enemy, deadly to be an American ally. Might Egypt be a classic example of what you're talking about? Might President al-Sisi fear the Arab street? I don't mean that in a denigrating way. I mean, the masses of people livid at what's going on next door. Right. I mean, the Egyptian nation is so based on the

corruption of the last, you know, decades, you know, the Mubarak regime and then now the Sisi regime that receives more than a billion dollars a year to its military for its willingness to go along with the American empire. And of course, what we in egypt is a country that's economy is just it's been hollowed out again very corrupt and all kinds of other things that have contributed to that but this nature that the egyptian people are hurting and now this idea of watching what's happening to the palestinian people uh the abuses towards Egypt by Israel, by the Americans, by the British, this long history. You have a very well-established foundation of opposition in the Egyptian society through essentially the Muslim Brotherhood. So absolutely, if you're

sissy looking at this and you want to hang on to your dictatorship, you want to keep your military regime, your junta in power, basically. OK, maybe the Americans are not the best way to go on this because the people may rise up. It's happened before. You know, how did you come in power? You came in power by overthrowing the people who overthrew Mubarak. Right. So, I mean, this is all this is not academic. This is in their lived experiences. So it is this is this is something I think, again, the American empire has put its allies into its supposed allies. But this is when you build, you know, judgment, you build a house of cards out of like rotted out, corrupted, moldy cards. This is the danger you're going to you're going to run into. What can you tell us about the. To me, unexpected, but maybe this is planned, plotted, and timed, I don't know, resignation of the general, the Israeli general who was the chief

of military intelligence, supposedly taking blame for October 7th. It sounds like either Netanyahu threw him under the bus or this guy did Netanyahu an enormous favor. I mean, what is the significance, if any, of that resignation and what he said? And will it deflect the ire of the Israeli public from Netanyahu to him? Right. It's basically a sacrifice to the very angry public. You know, it's interesting, right? As we've talked about before, 70, you know, 70, 80% of the Israeli public supports this genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, but that the same amount want to see Netanyahu resign. So Netanyahu for his own political survivor needs people to step up and, you know, commit

seppuku, right? To make themselves as an offering basically and uh you know this this general he was in his 38th year of service uh for all we know he could have been planning to retire next month anyhow uh you know i mean so how much of a sacrifice is this really but i think to your point it is that that attempt to placate, to at least show that something's being done. I don't think many people estimate this to be the first of a real soul searching, right? That this is the first expression of a real soul searching of the Israeli military and intelligence establishment over October 7th and what led up to October 7th.

I think this is probably a political gesture. Of course, I would defer to our friends, Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté on this. They certainly have a better understanding, but that's what it comes across to me. My gut feeling is that this guy was in his 38th year. He's not losing much. He's already got his villa in wherever south of France, ready to go live there. So him giving himself up like this was a way to help out. But, you know, time will tell. Time will tell. See if there's more people who are held accountable and or whether or not you're just going to have basically some sacrificial lambs, some scapegoats opened up. Where do you think President Vladimir Putin is on the

Israeli-Iran conflict? Well, certainly Russia's relationship with Iran has changed over these last couple of decades. A friend of mine who pretty knowledgeable with this stuff, just talks about how this idea that Tehran and Moscow would somehow be allies is just incredible, incredible to people who study this, who know this. The ability of the Americans, of the American empire to make this happen is near miraculous. So, I mean, it's certainly not an alliance in the sense where I think Russia will come to Iran's aid if Iran was attacked, but certainly you have that economic relationship, you have that military relationship in the sense of the selling of, you know, the selling of Iranian drones to Russia, the selling of Russian air defense missiles to Iran, you know, but then also to being the political relationship of being,

you know, thrust into the same position of having to repel advances by the American empire of being pushed, you know, until you can only push back, and they're both in the same position. And so, you know, they need to get into the basic concepts of, you know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And I think it's much more evolved than that with Russia and Iran. But certainly, I think that the more important relationship in what we're talking about with this regards the Middle East is that relationship between Russia and Syria. And Syria is an ally of Russia in the sense that Russia will defend Syria. And why do the Israelis keep poking the bear then and attacking Syria?

Well, I mean, some of it, let's not get too overly complicated, right? Judge, let's go back to Occam's razor. And the simple answer is the right answer. They're genocidal maniacs, right? I mean, that's part of this. We want to, I think we, you know, we don't want to believe it's that simple that these people are crazy for lack of a better term, but they are. They have people in power just as we do who want to have the final battle. They want to throw down. They believe in their own righteousness. They believe in their own place in history. And they want us to come to some conclusion, some definitive battle for which they will have ownership of, which history will remember them for. And so I think some of it is as simple as that. I think others, it's more cynical,

it's more calculated, this idea of poking the bear to get into a position where the Americans feel that they have to put themselves in between us and the bear, in between the bear and the Israelis, right? So to protect the American interest as well as Israeli interest, and because now that we've got the Americans in front of us, the Israelis say we can do more, we've got this great shield, we can do more. We can actually thrust further. We can poke harder because the Americans are with us. Right. I mean, and so I think there's a combination of those things that, you know, allow for the Israelis to do things that will keep seeing them do things that for most of us, we take a step back and we say, why are they doing

this? Why are they poking the bear? The response is going to be something that will be much, much worse than any benefit they could get out of this. If you continue to bomb these, say you continue to bomb positions in Syria, the Israelis do, in the state of attempts to disrupt Iranian weapon shipments to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Take that at face value. Well, the consequences for that of maybe destroying a truck or two full of unguided rockets, the consequences of having your aircraft then shot down by the Russians if you keep pushing this, if you kill some Russian soldiers by mistake or some Russian contractors or whoever, And the Russians feel they have to respond and they shoot down two of your F-16s and kill two of your pilots. And now where does that go? All of a sudden, the idea of like destroying a couple of trucks full of

unguided rockets, it didn't seem that important. It doesn't seem that important anymore. You know, and so, but the decision-making here is really perplexing, I think, unless we take a better term, who believe that somehow this is some, they are part of some cosmic arc of history, and that they are truly about to fight God's decisive battle. Transitioning to Ukraine, I think you've seen this, but it will raise your blood pressure a little bit. Here is the moment on the floor of the House of Representatives when the Ukraine vote passed. Whoever's in the speaker chair, not the speaker, announces that it passed. And then just watch the reaction of members of both parties on the floor of the House of Representatives. Sonia. I missed it, but thank you. Okay. The House will be in order.

The House will be in order. The chair would remind my colleagues to observe proper decorum. Flag waving on the floor is not appropriate. The House will be in order. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida rise? The gentlewoman from Florida. The gentlewoman does not recognize.

Colleagues. No, I'm going to. The House will be in order. Crazy. Yeah. You're a veteran. Could you imagine being on the floor of the House of Representatives and people are waving a foreign flag against the law? It's against the rules of the House.

They did it anyway. Somebody distributed those things. It's not a coincidence. Oh, it was planned. It was planned. I mean, it's just that- This is the mentality that's making these decisions. Okay. Without getting into their sandbox with them, how dangerous is it now that this $61 billion has been approved, what do we realistically expect will make its way from the United States to Ukraine as part of this package? Right. So about that $61 billion, Judge, $23 billion is going to go for American stockpiles to go over there. So that money is used for the American military to send weapon systems and munitions to Ukraine. And then the American military buys and refills their stockpiles

using that money. About $13 billion, that goes right to the defense contractors to purchase new systems, right? So to put in orders for systems to be delivered in the future. And that might be three months from now, might be nine months from now, might be nine months from now, might be three years from now when those weapons systems and munitions get delivered. And then there's also too, I think it was seven or $8 billion of that money that is going to US military operations in Europe.

So the Pentagon itself gets more from this than the Ukrainians actually do. Certainly, the Ukrainians, the munitions are needed by their army. The weapon systems are needed by the army. It does nothing, of course, to improve their circumstances, to improve the situation. At best, you and I are having the same conversation this time next year. That's at best. If the Ukrainian army doesn't collapse, more so if the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian

economy doesn't collapse, a good portion of that money, I think about $10 billion or so, goes to keeping the Ukrainian government running, right? So to prevent that house of cards from collapsing, you know, but what the real dangerous thing I see here, Judge, is that if we had any question about what the White House was considering these next six months during this run up to the American election in November, we understand it now. They are going to go full in that the Ukrainian war is a war of good versus evil, is a war of democracy versus authoritarianism, is a war of Churchill versus Hitler. So if Emmanuel Macron calls up Biden tomorrow and says, I'm going to send a couple of thousand troops in, Biden doesn't say, don't do it? I don't think so. I think Biden says,

just be careful not to try and escalate it like the fool, like the old fool he is, in the sense of like, just let's just keep this in a steady state so we can use this politically against the Republicans, because we are the party that is for democracy. We are the party on the side of Churchill, that type of framing. The juxtaposition too is against what's happening with the genocide in Israel, where hopefully the Democrats, I think the Democrats hope to see Netanyahu removed before November, 2024. This way they can point to Netanyahu and said that genocide is all on Netanyahu. And in the meantime, juxtapose against the heroic, good fight for the good American role in Ukraine, trying to

make this resemble World War II as much as possible. And that'll be what they'll use rolling into the elections. And I think you see the Republicans understanding that, a lot of criticism coming from conservatives towards Speaker Mike Johnson, of course, for allowing this to happen, for voting for it, but also to criticism towards Donald Trump for not opposing it and for endorsing it. So maybe perhaps the Republicans are already trying to get one step ahead of the Democrats in terms of making it so that they're both on the same side in Ukraine in terms of wanting to see the money go there, of standing up for democracy, all that other propaganda. And what, of course, that means then is that the Ukrainians continue to be used as pawns for American domestic politics in this unwinnable war as their young men get chewed up, as families lose future, as their land is destroyed, you know, and as we

all then risk this war possibly escalating to your point about the French sending troops in, this war then escalating to a point where it becomes a war of NATO versus Russia. And then that proceeds step by step to the use of nuclear weapons. Do you think that the American government has ever considered the consequences of an Iranian, of a Ukrainian defeat and the likelihood of a Ukrainian defeat? I think what they've considered is how that would affect them politically. So they just want it to happen after November. Exactly. Exactly. Because they're scared to death of the statements and Republicans being Joe Biden lost Afghanistan and he lost Ukraine. Right. So what I think the Republicans have done here is they're able to be on both sides of this issue. Right. So at this point, Trump, even though he endorsed this spending package, is able to say I was against Putin in Ukraine.

I'm supportive of Ukraine, but he's also able to say, I would have done it differently than Joe Biden. I wouldn't have lost it. Right. So you see this political maneuvering, which, again, comes at the expense of the Ukrainians. But the idea being for the Democrats is don't allow this thing to collapse before November. So what we're going to see then, of course, is this $61 billion stretch is not going to last very long. And the new spending bills need to start being put forward over the summer. So within a few months time, we're going to see another request

for $60 billion or however much it's going to be. From your years in the military and your years at the State Department, do you think that Washington thinks that its resources, its military resources are limitless? They are sitting on top of an American empire that fights its wars based on the idea of being able to waste more than everybody else. And some of that's got to do with past American industrial capacity that no longer exists. Some of it's got to do with us having the world's reserve currency, which is steadily diminishing in which other nations are now accelerating everything, every way possible

to remove that designation of reserve currency from us. But that is the mindset that's there, that this is limitless, that we can do this. Remember Joe Biden said a couple of years ago, I think it was, Judge, we're the United States of America. Of course we can fight two wars at one time or whatever he said, you know what I mean? So, and then the thing that's so,

it's just not the, particularly say the Democratic Party's desire for war, their willingness to see this slaughter, you know, this reckless war in Ukraine continue. But also it was the money for a future war with China that all the Democrats voted for as well. So with Ukraine spending, you had all the Democrats vote for this Ukrainian war, but you also had all the Democrats vote for a future war with China. And so that is something that really should give people pause as we see that we barely have enough to maintain limited engagement in the Middle East. We barely have enough to sustain a proxy war in Ukraine, and these lunatics, you know, I feel like I'm giving you a terrible episode here,

Judge, because I'm relying on words like maniacs and crazy people. No, no, no. These people that you're describing as maniacs and lunatics, there is ample evidence to support those descriptions. I'm at a loss for what else to say, you know? I mean, so, you know, they want this war with China, and maybe they don't personally want it, Their institutions do, and those they represent, their constituencies do. And their constituencies, of course, are not the American people. Their constituencies are the banks, the fossil fuel adjectives that make the most sense to you, my friend. We'll see you again. We'll see you Friday for the roundtable with you and that youngster, Ray McGovern. That's right.

As long as Ray doesn't get us arrested before then or something like that. He's trying hard. All the best, Matt. Thank you. Thanks, Judge. Coming up at 3 o'clock, Karen Kwiatkowski, and at 4 o'clock, Matt Anzalone. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace.

You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself? Talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace. Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences, and be matched with a therapist.

And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship, or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support, Talkspace is here for you. Plus, Talkspace works with most you. Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance? No problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com. Save $80 with code SPACE80 at Talkspace.com.