Judging Freedom - Phil Giraldi : The Israelization of the US Military

Episode Date: June 3, 2026

Phil Giraldi : The Israelization of the US MilitarySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Undeclared wars are commonplace. Fragically, our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression with no complaints from the American people. Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government? Jefferson was right? What if that government is best which governs least? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish fighting for

freedom than to live as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now? Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for judging freedom. Today is Wednesday, June third, 2006. Phil Giraldi joins us now. Phil, always a pleasure. I was just on the George Galloway show with guest host Gerald Salenti. And of course, he extends his regards and love for you. Before we get to your rather extraordinary and terrifying piece about the Israelization of the U.S. military, I want to ask you a few questions about what Larry Johnson and Pepe Escobar have reported on this show. Larry reported two days ago, and then we asked him to confirm it, and then he and Pepe came on separately today and both

articulated the view that a credible source told them that President Poseschkian of Iran called the Prime Minister of Pakistan and said, you better tell Marco Rubio and the Americans that we have a nuclear weapon, and we're going to detonate it. in the Iranian desert just to show the Israelites, the Israelis, excuse me, that they cannot visit an existential threat on us. I know you watched what they said to me, and I know that you know that I'm extremely fond of them and have relied on them and they are personal as friends as well as professional colleagues.

What was your take on what they said? Well, my take was basically that they said what I kind of wanted to hear in terms of their own reputations and their own understanding of how these things work about the source, which was basically they insisted that the source was credible and was in place. and essentially that would imply that their source was a government official at a very high level. And given that, I have to believe that what the source is telling them, telling again, this is the emphasis. What he was telling, he or she was telling them was basically what they are reporting. But the fact is, they have no way of verifying. the information independently of him or her.

And again, what it comes down to is that there are a lot of possible reasons why this story would be considered important to float out there, even if it's not true. So I think you have to be skeptical about this until something happens or some kind of verification for the very top level of the Iranian government or Pakistani government comes to support this. So I would take it with a grain of salt or maybe a whole picture of salt. And I would, at the same time, use it in terms of my thinking about what might be developing in the region. Well, talk to me about, and I appreciate what you said, what you said is your usual, not usual, constant intellectual honesty, in this case evaluating the

credibility, not of what our friends told us, but what they say a colleague of theirs told them. Offair, Larry told me who the source was. Sounds very credible. Sounds very credible to me. My question to you, Phil Giraldi, wouldn't the CIA, MI6, and Mossad know about this? Well, it depends on how this was floated or what the channel was. The reality is that CIA Mossad and MI6 all operate in the same way, which is essentially either you have a living source there planted in that government who is in a position and capable of giving you that kind of information. That's one way. But the other more common way that all of those intelligence agencies and also the Russians and

Chinese and everybody else collect information is using technology, where you pick up phone call. If this were true, there'd be people chattering on it on the secure phones in Iran. And if that were the case, there would be certainly at least one, two, three, four or more major intelligence agencies who would be able to break the code and pick it up. So that's kind of what goes through my head when it refers to me that if someone is making a claim about intelligence information, well, how did you get it and where did you get it? Who was it from? So if the president of Iran is going to call the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the middle of a war and in the middle of negotiations in which the Prime Minister of Pakistan and his army chief are serving as the

principal of mediators. And he's going to say something as outlandish as, we have a nuclear weapon and we might detonate it in the Iranian desert just to show the Israelis and the Americans we mean business. Wouldn't he have said that on a secure line? Or is there a no such thing as a secure line when your adversaries are CIA, MI6, and Mossad? Yeah, I would say that the reality is that there is no such thing as a secure line anymore, because let's face it, and you talk, if the president of Iran is talking to the president of Pakistan, they're not the same room, they're not the same city, that that's signal has to go through the air or through some other means to get from one place to the other,

and that's where these foreign intelligence services are able to tap into it. I mean, they're monitoring these phone transmissions 24-7, and they're able to do it with computers that enable to monitor thousands and thousands of calls all the time. And as a recent, result, if you had that kind of information, that first person phone call from one head of state to another, well, that's a different level than just some source who is credible and has access. You and I talk on the phone about Italian restaurants. Do they monitor it? Yeah. Not because they're looking for restaurants. Honestly, I mean, you'd be amazed at the extent to which technical agencies,

security agencies, intelligence agencies have all gone technical in terms of what their capabilities are. And their capabilities are quite amazing. All right. Next topic, the Trump cursing Netanyahu. Chris, can you put those two full screens up? This is all from Axios, which claims to have three sources, two of which were in the room with Trump. You're effing crazy. He fumes at Netanyahu and call on Lebanon. Then he says to Netanyahu, you'd be in prison if it weren't for me.

I'm saving your ass. Everybody hates you. Everybody hates Israel because of this. Then Netanyahu doesn't say to Trump, but he posts that nothing will change. The IDF will continue to operate as planned in southern Lebanon. question, Phil Giraldi, was, did this actually happen or was it, was it an act? Was it performative? Yeah. I mean, you can even argue that it actually happened, but it was an act. And I suspect that there might be a bit of that in it. This certainly is out of character.

Donald Trump is This is the first time that I think we've picked up on or we've heard of Trump using this kind of aggression and language with Netanyahu ever since this war began. And so, and I'm talking about war in the broader sense

going back to when it started in Gaza. And so I suspect this is out of character to such an extent that maybe the conversation wasn't quite that brutal. And of course, Netanyahu is coming back with his own support of what the reality is on the ground in both Beirut and near Beirut and also in Gaza. I don't know what the reports are on the fighting today, whether it's still going on or not. but clearly the intention on part of it now is to keep doing it. And if it screws up the peace talks with Iran on the part of the United States,

if those talks actually still exist, then Netanyahu would be quite satisfied with that. Here's Senator Van Hollen of Maryland making some comments, the Secretary of State Rubio, and channeling his inner Phil Johnson. Raldi, cut number eight. Netanyahu said he's been waiting 40 years to do this. Turns out he finally found a president who was both stupid and reckless enough to join him. The war has killed 14 American service members, wounded hundreds more, and killed thousands of civilians.

It's driving up the price of gas, food, and much more. Trump obviously doesn't care. He called high gas prices peanuts and said, I don't think about Americans' financial situation. All true. Did you see that Barry Weiss was sitting behind the senator? It did look like her. Well, it sure did. Anyway, yeah, well, I agree with the senator,

except I probably would have been a lot more vulgar or the Trump style. But yeah. How much money does Israel receive from? from the United States annually? And how does that compare with what other countries receive, Phil? Well, the only other countries that are even comparable receive large sums of money because of Israel,

and that's Egypt and Jordan. They receive in excess of a billion dollars a year to stay friendly with Israel. Israel gets the flat 3.8 billion every year, but that figure is a joke. There was, when Joe Biden was still in office, money was constantly being summoned up from the Treasury and sent over to Israel,

together with weapons for which Israel was not paying, which have a cost. And of course, Donald Trump has continued the same practice. Israel gets what Israel wants, whether it's money, whether it's weapons, or whether it's political color in places like the UN. Israel is always the special exception to every rule, where the deep pit for money and for everything else.

Israeli friends on the Council of Foreign Relations recount that Israel has received over 300 billion with a B in assistance since World War II, from the United States. That's consistent with what you've told us. This is the top recipient of foreign aid from the United States. What is the legislation,

I don't know if it's passed or not, which would treat US persons in the IDF as if they were in the US military? What is that all about? Well, this is probably for me as a veteran, and I know you, R2. This is the crime of the century. The two congressmen from two Republican congressmen, of course, from the northern states have two years ago in, in 2024, submitted a bill which would basically

make any American. And now this, the definition of America is dicey in this too. It's not just an American. It's also It could be an Israeli citizen, a dual national, who also has American citizenship, of which there are many. And the bill basically made it, would make it a fact that veterans from the Israeli army who are also American citizens can get the full load of benefits

that the United States government, government pays to American veterans like us who served in the U.S. military. And this includes educational benefits, this includes health benefits, this includes a whole array of different benefits that go to veterans if they need them or if they want them. But the Israelis uniquely, no other country, no NATO country, no country by any other description, except Israel would be getting these benefits, which normally went only to American service members, veterans. So this is obscene.

The bill was submitted two years ago, and it was House Resolution 8445. I want to get the number right. But if you go and look for that number now, it's no longer that bill. Did this thing pass? Is this the law? No, it did not pass.

But really good informed sources on military matters like military. com believe that the bill is still floating around there. And there is an intention to bounce it back up and to bring it for eventually for no discussion. Let's avoid discussion on this one. and give it a secret vote. Wow. 75% of the USA given to Israel is used to purchase, no surprise, Phil. U.S. manufactured weapons and defense systems, meaning the majority of the funds

stay in the United States and go directly to the defense industry. What happens? I'm going to change the subject slightly. What happens to an American official? say a Joe Kent or a Tulsi Gabbard, when they were in office, if they were to reveal what we all know to be true that Israel has nuclear weapons? Well, there's a rule in the U.S. government that any federal government official

should not be allowed to ever mention that the state of Israel has a nuclear weapons arsenal. This is a funny story going go way back, where the series of presidents for various reasons did not want to either, A, embarrass their wonderful, reliable ally Israel, or a combination with the fact that they knew that Israel had a nuclear arsenal because our intelligence agencies told them and because Israel stole the enriched uranium from a plant in Pennsylvania

and stole the timers and igniters that create a bomb from a factory in California. And they did this back in the 60s. And that's how they built their nuclear arsenal. John F. Kennedy tried to stop them from having a nuclear arsenal. And perhaps inevitably, he was assassinated. I wonder how that happened. And so anyway, the Israelis sold.

They had this arsenal of between 2 and 400 nuclear weapons as well as delivery systems to use them. And the U.S. government decided, well, we don't want to make a fuss about this, so U.S. government officials will understand that they cannot mention that Israel has a nuclear arsenal. And this rule has kind of stuck up until the present. So Al Jazeera reports that this rule stems from a 1969 secret understanding between president. President Richard Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, who as you know was born in the United States, which the U.S. agreed not to release publicly the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons or refuses to join the nonproliferation treaty. Did Jonathan Pollard have anything to do with stealing nuclear secrets? What did he steal?

No, his basic crime was, he didn't have, I don't think he had access to that kind of, or certainly he had access to the fact that Israel had nuclear weapons, but he didn't have access to any specifics, I would imagine, about that. He wouldn't have had a document in front of him. But the fact is, what Pollard did was Pollard revealed the capabilities that the U.S. intelligence agencies, and by that I mean all of them, CIA, DIA, State Department, and all 18, 19 of them that existed at the time,

that the agencies that had all different types of ways of collecting information, some of it technical, some of it human, some of it, you know, crossing the line between one and the other. And Jonathan Pollard revealed all these sources of information that the U.S. had, and gave this to Israel, which in turn shared it with the Russians and the Chinese, in return for favors, of course. So this is the Pollard story, and that's why he was the most damaging spy ever against the United States because he ruined the systems that allowed the United States to have an edge

in collecting information from adversaries. And after that, the United States had to completely rebuild it. Would there be any adverse consequences to Israel if the United States government recognized the truth that Israel has nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty? Yeah, there is in fact the consequence, and the consequence of the fact that there are several laws on the books, which basically say that you can't do that. And you can't get any weapons aid from the United States or any funds. foreign aid from the United States if you are in defiance of those rules. So yeah, Israel would technically be in a lot of trouble, although I can't quite picture a Donald Trump in any way taking steps to punish Israel, nor a Joe Biden, were not in that

kind of world anymore. But I think the ultimate reason why some of these decisions were made that basically this would hurt Israel's ability to steal our money. Wow. Last topic, Phil, the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2027. This is basically the thousand-plus page authorization for the Defense Department to spend, in this case, 1.2.5 and 1.7 trillion, has snuck into it, although it's not in there now, but there's an effort to do so. Section 224,

which would fuse American military and Israeli military. What is that all about? This is another one of these quite bizarre things. In fact, this is far more dangerous than some of the stuff we've talked about up till now.

If you don't mind, I'll do a quick read. This was, as you say, the United States Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, section 224 of the Act for 2027. And it describes it as integrating U.S., Israeli military research and development, co-production of weapons, systems, licensing agreements, AI, directed energy, data integration, and missile defense. This about covers everything.

This would put Israeli officials into bed with our Pentagon officials who do all the basic planning and implementation of our defense systems. Israel would be a partner, a full partner, and be a full contributor to this process. We, of course, would be paying the bills for all of this. And the fact is that this would make the United States nothing more than, as I say, a co-partner and equal in dealing with Israel. And Israel will be putting its interests up front in terms of American defense strategy and spending and practices. So this is absolutely incredible. The U.S. has no arrangement like this with any of. other country in the world, even including NATO allies who are obviously should be in the first

line in terms of sharing information. Israel would be uniquely this, even though Israel is not even an ally of the United States in any technical sense. And starting wars that the United States does not benefit from. too is not yet the law of the land. In fact, I believe it has been withdrawn. It's not in the NDAA yet. It might be, given the Christian nationalists that run the House of Representatives, we'll see where it goes. It has not caused the stir that it should. You have quite properly condemned this. Very few others have, my dear friend. Well, thank you. But, you know, this is,

This is incredible. The fact that this could even be conceived of by our leaders, by our government, as something that was good for our country. I mean, this is unbelievable. And my understanding from a number of sources is, yeah, these two things are still kind of floating out there. Yes. The Israel's friends, of course, will do everything in their power, and they have a great deal of power, to make these things come about. And that way, you realize that Benjamin Netanyahu recently said, oh, well, you know, we will maybe do without these billion-dollar,

multi-billion dollar grants that we get from you every October 1st. Maybe that would be a good thing. Well, he was already figuring out that he was going to be getting these other things, which were even better. Phil Giraldi, thank you very much, my dear friend. I didn't see Rupert today, but it's great to see you as always. And we'll look forward to seeing you next week. All the best.

Okay, well, take care of guys. Thank you, bye-bye. Coming up tomorrow Thursday at 9 in the morning, our old friend, former British diplomat, Ian Proud, that's at 9 in the morning, at 1.15 in the afternoon, the golden boy, Max Blumen, at two in the afternoon, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson. At three in the afternoon, the cleanup bitter, Colonel Douglas McGregor.

Judge Napolitano for judging Freedom.