Judging Freedom - Matt Hoh: US Unleashes Anarchy in Syria.

Episode Date: December 12, 2024

Matt Hoh: US Unleashes Anarchy in Syria.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 Thursday, December 12th, 2024. Our dear friend and regular contributor Matt Ho will be with us in just a moment on the United States unleashing anarchy in Syria. But first this. សូវាប់បានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបានបា Matt, welcome here, and thank you for playing such a significant role in helping us to achieve that goal. Two weeks early of half a million subscribers by Christmas, which is two weeks from yesterday. This happened in the middle of the night while we were all asleep. Well, congratulations, Judge. Congratulations. Well-deserved and onward to a million now, right? Yes, absolutely.

Absolutely. How do you explain the American involvement in the downfall of President Assad? Oh, it's been a long time coming, something that they have worked hard at for many years now, the United States government. It's something that they never let go of. They are persistent. that removing Assad was to them an integral part of remaking the Middle East in a manner that makes Israel the predominant or dominant power in the region. Everything to do, everything in the Middle East centers around Israel. Everything in the Middle East centers around opposition to Iran.

This is the American outlook towards the judge. And so this utilization of Turkish-backed forces, whether they're jihadist, Islamist, extreme forces like HTS, or more, quote, moderate, unquote, forces like the Syrian National Army, as well as the Kurdish forces, the use of the Islamic State and other extreme reactionary religious groups over the last decade plus in the region. It's all been about improving Israel's position and weakening Iran. And it has almost nothing to do with the Syrian people, the Syrian government. It's got everything to do with these acolytes of Henry Kissinger and Zygmunt Brzezinski treating the Middle East like their own chessboard. Was there ever an effort by American diplomats to

work with President Assad, or was the goal always, I'm talking about the younger President Assad, the one that was just deposed, not his father? Or was the goal always just to depose him? I realize I'm asking you several questions at once, but your brain is very fertile. Wasn't Assad and weren't his intelligence services CIA assets at one point? They were. They were. And the convoluted, twisted, and turning upside down narrative of the last 80 years since the end of the Second World War, the relationship between the U.S. and Syria has been schizophrenic, I guess, maybe, at times. There was actually U.S. involvement in coups there. There were, as you said, close relationships between the U.S. intelligence services and the Syrian intelligence services.

There were desires or aims between one another that that were almost like an enemy. My friend that lasted, you know, in and out through decades, but in this modern era, particularly I have to say since this century, in the 21st century, the U.S. has seen removing Assad as a goal. This is all part and parcel, again, of the Israel first policy of the Americans, this idea that Assad, because he is nominally or directly aligned with Iran, that he needs to be removed. That removing Assad and his government will weaken Iran's position, which will then, of course, weaken Hezbollah and the Palestinians' position, which will then, of course, improve Israel's position. And for the Israelis, the paramount thing is the Palestinians. For the Israelis, the most important thing has always been for them

achieving the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. And in order to do that, they need outside support. In order to have outside support, you have to have storylines that agree with those outside powers. So the United States, right? Iran, of course, is the great boogeyman, particularly since 1979, the hostage crisis, the Ayatollah taken over, et cetera, et cetera. So you see how these various narratives and storylines intersect, and they entangle one another, and are utilized for different purposes. And we haven't even talked about what the Turks have been doing, the Gulf monarchies, all these various foreign interests within Syria, almost all of whom have no interest whatsoever in the Syrian people themselves. They only have interest in achieving some type of grand geopolitical chessboard type

a la Kissinger and Zabrinsky moves. Phil Giraldi argued yesterday that some Syrian generals were more likely than not bribed to make it easier for the jihadists to take over. I heard, Judge, you know, the playbook from 10 years ago, 15 years ago, is back out, dusted off. They're not being described as moderate rebels this time around. But, you know, I mean, I heard one person on Al Jazeera describing them as constrained jihadists. I mean, so, right. I mean, so the Orwellian... What is a constrained jihadist? Right, right. And this is a person, a prominent position in a think tank in the United Kingdom, et cetera, et cetera. I'm sure he advises Downing Street, that type of thing. But this is the type of Orwellian rhetoric that we're used to.

I think seeing the speed at which Assad's government fell, I mean, I was in Ireland and I went to bed at night and the Syrian opposition forces, HTS and others, were outside of Homs still. So still relatively far, relatively far from Damascus. And I woke up, you know, seven hours later, however long, and Assad was on a plane to Russia. So the speed at which this happened, it was impressive. But it also, I think, gets to your point that Phil was talking about, that there are a lot of things going on here behind the scenes that we don't know. Certainly, we know about the role of Turkey in all this. We know about the role

of Israel in all this, the role of the Americans, their airstrikes, say, just softening up the Syrians, not just over the last weeks and last months, but over the last years. The American sanctions on Syria, the American possession of the Syrian wheat and oil fields to make it so that the Syrian government could be nothing other than weak and barely holding on. And so that's what you saw essentially in this last week was just how tenuous the hold that the Syrian government had on its power. And of course, the smart thing was done, if Phil's correct, and I have no reason to believe he's not, the smart thing was done

with paying people off. This is how the Taliban took power, not once, but twice in Afghanistan. They certainly fought well, but they also knew how to pay off their enemies. They knew how to buy loyalties. They knew how to upend old grievances and begin new relationships, often through a payment. So, you know, this was impressive in how quickly the government was brought down, how quickly the Russian ally was destroyed, and how quickly Turkey particularly, but also the Israelis and Americans, changed dynamic in the Middle East within a couple of weeks. I mean, it has to be said, Judge, that the Israelis have proven themselves competent, right, the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, what will be the annexation of the West Bank, the removal of Hezbollah, which I believe is temporary, but it's certainly what's occurring right now, the removal of Hezbollah as a threat to their north, or at least as something that puts significant pressure on their north, and now the destruction of the Syrian government. They've significantly weakened the axis of resistance, and we have to give them credit for their ability to do so.

Where this goes to, of course, is something I think is what worries me. The hubris is building, I think, in Tel Aviv. The hubris is building in Washington, D.C. I think the Trump people coming in will be buoyed by this, validated by this. And of course, as we said in opening comments here, this has deep roots. This desire to destroy Syria, as well as many other nations throughout the Middle East, for the purposes of improving Israel's position in the Middle East, has something that has long been desired by the foreign policy elite in Washington, D.C., both Republicans and Democrats. You know, my boss, Dennis Fritz, who you have come on, whose book, Deadly Betrayal, is about

this reasoning, this rationale for the Iraq war based upon improving Israel's position in the Middle East. Dennis could tell you all about this. Here's a rather morose looking, looking like an undertaker yet again. Jake Sullivan earlier today at the American embassy in Jerusalem talking about all this. Cut number two, Chris. The balance of power in the Middle East has changed significantly and not in the way that Sinwar or Nasrallah or Iran had planned. We are now faced with a dramatically reshaped Middle East in which Israel is stronger, Iran is weaker, its proxies decimated, and a ceasefire that is new and will be lasting in Lebanon that ensures Israel's security over the long term. The purpose of my visit today has been to continue to build on this progress,

to ensure that that ceasefire sticks and is fully enforced, to capitalize on the opportunity of the fall of Assad for a better future for the people of Syria, while vigilantly managing the risks that come with the change in Syria, including the possibility and the risk that terrorist groups like ISIS are able to take advantage and create new threats against the United States, Israel and other countries in the region and around the world. This is just absurd. The American government couldn't give a damn about the people of Syria, and he's just

unleashed a gaggle of terrorists who are as bad or worse than ISIS. Right, right, Judge. And I mean, the obsession with Iran, the relationship with Israel, which I don't even, I'm jet lagged a bit, so I'm not sure I can fully articulate that relationship. But we all know what I'm talking about, that special relationship. Of course. That dominates everything, that controls everything we do.

And it makes people like Jake Sullivan unable to have a worldview of anything other than something dominated by those two points. Everything bad is Iran. Everything good is Israel, you know, to simplify it. The idea that somehow the risk of Al Qaeda, which essentially this is what HTS is, Islamic State in the east of Syria, the idea that somehow the risk of them taking power, creating a caliphate is a better risk, is a better option than Assad staying in power, essentially weakened, unable to do much other than support a Russian air base or two, allow the Russians to dock their ships there and provide a road for Iran to drive 70, 80 year old rockets to Lebanon to that somehow the option of a caliphate is better than a weak but stable Syria shows how demented these people are in Washington, D.C. How do you explain, you mentioned Russia, how do you explain the Russian indifference

or apparent indifference to Assad's demise? I'm not talking about giving him asylum. I'm talking about keeping him in power. I mean, Donald Trump, I know he generally speaks in exaggerated terms, tweeted over the weekend that Assad fell because his patron, Vladimir Putin, abandoned him. How do you respond to that? I think the Russians are, of course, bogged down with Ukraine. I mean, they're in a war in Ukraine that is going on now for almost three years, something they didn't expect. So I remember when they invade Ukraine in February 2022, Negotiations begin two days afterwards. The Russians wanted to make a point through their invasion, begin negotiations and resolve the situation there.

They didn't expect to be at war for three years. They were prepared for it, obviously. They didn't expect it. And this, of course, means that they can't fulfill their obligation to their ally in Syria the way we would expect them to. Now, that's the way we expect them to. And we're also putting onto them this onus of an alliance that maybe they don't fully agree with. And so possibly, maybe, I mean, just speculating, but the Russians may be confident that they will be able to maintain their position in Western Syria along the coastline.

So they'll be able to hold on to a couple air bases, a port, whatever they have there, maintain that presence, that this is something maybe they've worked out with Turkey. Maybe it's something that they've worked out with the Americans. I mean, who knows at this point in a sense of, I doubt that the case with Americans, but you know what I'm saying, that the Russians, I think, of course, are embarrassed by losing their ally Assad. This is the way it's going to be displayed and depicted and detailed. But the reality is, what did they lose? And so if they've lost essentially a weight, something that was requiring them to put resources into a position in the Middle East that they weren't getting an advantage from. But they're still able to maintain the key things from that relationship.

Again, the port on the Mediterranean and entering into some type of understanding with the powers in the region that this is how it's going to be. You know, so essentially a dividing up of Syria, very early 20th century Sykes-Picot type of thing. I think maybe that helps us understand why the Russians took this rather nonchalantly as they did. They certainly launched attacks against the HCS forces that were advancing against the Syrian government forces. But, you know, maybe it was because they didn't have the wherewithal with their requirements being in Ukraine, with their requirements towards Ukraine, or just the desire. We didn't see them launch a campaign to keep Assad in power like we did 10 years ago. How can the American government justify Air Force bombing of Assad's military defenses? Well, certainly the American government is so obsessed with getting rid of

Assad and his government, because again, if it was Israel and Iran, then they're going to do whatever is going to point them in that direction. So if that means attack his forces to somehow nominally support the Kurdish forces, you know, I mean, it doesn't really make much sense, particularly that the Syrian forces in the central part of the country, the east towards the eastern part of the country, the government, former government forces were the ones that in large part were keeping the Islamic state forces in check. Remember, it was the Syrian Arab army backed by the Russians and reinforced by cadres of Iraqi and Lebanese militias that defeated the Islamic State on the ground.

Certainly, the Kurds backed by the United States did a heck of a lot in the east of Syria, too, to destroy the Islamic State, or at least render them militarily ineffective in Syria. But, you know, so you're removing this hedge against the Islamic State there. So when you played that clip before by Jake Sullivan, Judge, it's almost like he's letting on that he knows what's happening here, that the hedge that we had, the obstacle, the counterweight that we had against the Islamic State in central Syria, say, is now removed. That, of course, to many people in Washington, D.C., is an exciting thing because that means we can go back on the campaign. Maybe that means we need some more troops back over there.

Maybe that means we need to be more involved in terms of backing our Kurdish allies. And the whole thing becomes very, very absurd very quickly because, of course, the Turks are our ally. They're a NATO partner. They're the ones who instigated this or at least supported it and pushed HTS forward. They're also the ones who really do the Syrian National Army is a Turkish army, essentially. They're pushing against Kurdish positions because everything in Syria for the Turks is about the Kurds. I shouldn't say everything, but most, Syria for the Turks is about the Kurds. I shouldn't say everything, but most, that's their priority, is the Kurds.

And now you have the Turks wanting to weaken the Kurds in Syria, which runs directly into the interests of the United States because the Kurds are our allies there. We have about a thousand American troops in Eastern Syria who were there ostensibly to check the Islamic State, but also to provide that backing to the Kurds. What they're primarily doing, of course, is controlling the Syrian oil fields as well as the wheat fields to make sure the Syrian government never had the resources to ever able to stand on its own, let alone help the Syrian people rebuild or feed themselves or anything like that. So, I mean, the confluence of things that are occurring here, the number of interests that are running into each other, the number of interests that are counter to one another, and the whole argument of the enemy is my friend begins to unravel when you start facing more than one enemy and having more than one friend. I just want to go before we leave to Ukraine.

While you were in Ireland, the British government authorized and facilitated attacks by storm shadows into Russia. And the American government did the same with the TACOMs. And then yesterday morning, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said this, cut number 14. Seeing the confrontation in the Russian-American relations, because of the official Washington, they are on the verge of breaking. The trips, private and business trips to U.S. are fraught with serious risks. There is a literal hunt by the American law enforcement and intelligence service for our citizens.

And there is a fraud scheme of luring out Russian citizens to abroad. So how is it happening? They send invitations with some beneficial commercial or tourist offers. After that, the people that were targeted are detained, and then they're extradited to the American jurisdiction according to the extradition agreements. And there is a full list of countries that cooperate with the U.S. in the – regarding the extradition.

It will be on our website. That is why we urge during the celebrations and in the future to refrain from any trips to the US or any allied satellite states, first of all Canada, and countries of the EU with some exceptions. It isn't an emergency, of course. Should this be taken seriously? Is the Kremlin signaling that the Resnik is going to be used, maybe the American air base in Poland? It should be taken seriously, Judge. I mean, I think they have still a way to go, the Russians, before they hit a NATO site. And they have a lot of other options they can do before that in terms of

saying hitting NATO communications assets or targeting things within Ukraine that are directly tied to NATO. But it's certainly a point that we're heading towards. And, you know, I mean, just because we haven't reached it yet doesn't mean that we're not on our way there. And so the use of the Ereshnik, the threat of use of it is something that hasn't come lightly. And it also has been preceded by so many events that, of course, we're at this point. You know, it makes sense logically that we have arrived here because there's a whole sequence of action, counteraction, you know, supported by rhetoric on both sides that looking at where we're at, it's entirely understandable. Now, of course, we're waiting to see what occurs when the Trump administration comes in. I think like others, I'm very nervous that the Trump administration

is going to make demands of the Russians, is going to speak to the Russians in the manner that the Russians simply are not going to want to respond to. And that then, of course, the response will be from the Americans, well, we'll beat you then, which I think is essentially what we're expecting to see, particularly with the people that Trump is bringing into his administration. So if they can't deliver Trump a political victory that he can stand and say, look, I'm better than Biden. I didn't two or three months what Biden couldn't do in two or three years. I think if they don't get that, then of course, it's going to turn to be, okay, we're going to force the Russians to our will. And then we are in a position, you know, worse, I think, than we are now. Matt Ho, thank you very much, my dear friend. Much appreciated. I know you're on a little bit of sleep because of your international travel,

but you're very good to give us this time. And we look forward to seeing you next week. All right. Thanks, George. And congratulations again on the 500,000. Oh, thank you. Thank you very much. We are finished for today, but tomorrow, Friday, the end of the day, the end of the week, our intelligence at four o'clock in the afternoon, our intelligence community round table, and they'll have much knowing them to celebrate and crow about well knowing those two they're going to take credit for everything I'm being a little bit of exaggerating because I have such affection for them but they'll be here as will I of course at four o'clock tomorrow afternoon Judge Napolitano for judging freedom foreign I'm out.