Judging Freedom - Prof. Glenn Diesen : Does Europe Really Fear Russia?

Episode Date: June 12, 2025

Prof. Glenn Diesen : Does Europe Really Fear Russia?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, June 12th, 2025. My good friend, Professor Glenn Deason joins us now. Professor Deason, I want to talk to you about Europe and Russia and the comments made by Professor, by President Macron and Prime Minister Starmer and Chancellor Mers. But before we get there, do you see from your vantage point, Professor Dizon, any preparation for American war, American military attacking Iran, or is what you see just posturing for negotiations? Well, it's hard to say. I think the possibility is there for war. So far it does appear as if Trump doesn't actually want this war, who instead uses the

threat of war to put max pressure on Iran, hoping that it will do as it's told. The problem is that Iran sees that there's very little room to maneuver here, so none of this will work. So the big risk is that the Israelis will use this as an opportunity when Iran fails to abide by what Trump demands, use this as a way of pushing Trump and thus the United States to go to war against Iran. So it is a real possibility, sadly, but again, it does seem to me that Trump at least aims to avoid this, but it's getting too close. The US State Department in the past 24 hours

ordered embassies in the Middle East, not in Jerusalem, but in Iraq and I'm not sure where else, to send their non-essential civilian employees home. Some cost to the government given the size of the defense budget, it's a drop in the bucket, but is that significant or is this, I mean, what does that tell you of anything? Well, it is significant. This is what you would expect to see if the United States was getting ready for war.

So again, it all depends whether or not this is the US actually preparing for war or if it's, as you said, just posturing to try to escalate the pressure on Iran. It becomes a bit of speculation because at this point it looks like it could go either way. But it has to be pointed out. I'm hoping that no one in Washington, well some are, but that Trump wouldn't be this mad because such a war in Iran would be really destructive. They wouldn't only strike back at, well, whoever attacks, but they would go after the bases of the United States and the entire region. They could shut down a lot of the energy transiting. And there's no exit strategy. And again, the whole thing, the whole strategy of bombing Iran so it won't develop nuclear

weapons. Nothing will make it convince Iran more that it needs a nuclear deterrent than an attack on Iran. So, no, this is, I'm hoping that no one is mad enough to do this, but remains to be seen. Chris, let's play for Professor Deason, cut number two, and then immediately after, cut number 14. The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. So I'm trying to get everybody to think, let's don't do what we did in the 30s.

They're going to use a nuclear weapon if they get it. Are they trying to build a nuclear weapon versus a peaceful nuclear power program? Mr. Secretary, have the Iranians been trying to build a nuke? There are plenty of indications that they have been moving their way towards something that would look a lot like a nuclear weapon. So the first of course was a director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testifying before the same Senate committee under oath, a reference to the IC of course is to the intelligence community, which concluded unanimously and then she fired the people that came to this conclusion, but they they did conclude unanimously that Iran is not trying to build a nuclear weapon.

The second course was secretary, well it was kind of a dog and pony show between the most notorious warmonger in the United States Senate, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and acting like the puppeteer for the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth. Does this tell you anything, Professor Dizon? Well, it only shows the biases because, well, Lindsey Graham, as you said, has never seen a war he didn't like. But the whole thing appears as if they're looking for, obviously, an excuse to bomb because there's no indications that Iranians are pursuing a nuclear weapon.

I was in Tehran myself a few weeks ago. And my impression there was that they wouldn't mind a deal. But the thing is, one has to look at the kind of deals which are being negotiated. If the United States wanted a deal with the Iran, which limits its enrichment and prevents it from getting a nuclear weapon, such a deal could be reached. Because the Iranians have said we don't pursue nuclear weapons, as the US intelligence agencies confirm. So if it's about having transparency, then having inspections, you know, something can be done here. However, whenever there's a negotiation, there's a tendency in Washington to link the civilian nuclear program to, for example, the it with Hezbollah, with Yemen, Hamas, so what they call the resistance.

So it's always linked to the power position of Iran. So the objective is to break Iran. That's how it seems to me, because if it was only about the nuclear program, you could reach a deal, but it had to be dealt with separately. The reason why they bring in all of these other issues which they know Iran is not gonna accept any concessions on, then it simply looks like an excuse. And also the idea that Iran should dismantle even its civilian nuclear program, this is also not acceptable because Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation

treaty, which is why, which obliges it not to develop nuclear weapons, but the same treaty also allows it then to develop civilian nuclear programs. So on this, the Iranians are on the right side of international law. Those arguing it's not allowed to have a civilian nuclear program, they're the one in breach of the nuclear proliferation treaty, because as a signatory, they have every right to do so. So there's a lot of dishonesty, I think, around how these negotiations are yet taking place. Has Israel signed that treaty?

No, they have not. And that's the great irony. Israel has not signed a treaty. They, well, not most likely, they guaranteed have a decent stockpile of nuclear weapons. Yet, it's the Israelis that are demanding that the Iranians should be bombed for a non-existent nuclear weapons program. So it's all very absurd. And again, when I was there a few weeks ago, I spoke to various diplomats and military commanders. They're not irrational. They understand if they would develop nuclear weapons, the Saudis would go the same way. Others actors would do the same. You would end up in a situation where everyone would lose, where you know, more weapons does not always equal more security. This is just common sense. So I think, yeah, this, that is possible to deal with Iran as a rational actor. But so far, a lot of these negotiations seem, yeah, the intent or determined to simply look for an excuse to... I wonder if during these negotiations the Iranian negotiators look Mr. Wittkopf in the eye and say,

how did Israel get its nuclear weapons? He wouldn't even be able to answer that. No. And again, it's not just Israel has nuclear weapon, but if you look at the nuclear powers around the world today, which of them are most likely to use one in the foreseeable future? I think Israel would be at the top. So again, but this is the problem whenever we negotiate these days, be it with the Iranians, Russians, Chinese, the assumption is always that with max pressure, then the other side will have to do as they're told. But this is a legacy of the unipolar world order. If you want to make a deal with the other side, you should look for ways to address their security concerns as well. So there's mutual

compromise, but there's never any efforts to address Iran's security concerns. So I don't know where exactly where the United States stands on the enrichment issue. The last statement from the president was no enrichment at all. But he's also said, and Mr. Witkoff, of course, is not an official of the United States government, but is this emissary. Maybe he's the de facto Secretary of State, I know Marco Rubio doesn't like hearing that and I don't blame him, have said at times, the President and Mr. Witkoff have said at times that they can use uranium for civilian purposes, but they must know that reducing the amount of enrichment, whatever it is, 3.2, 3.9 down to zero, is a non-starter in the negotiation. It's the moral equivalent of the Ukrainians

asking for NATO in Ukraine in their negotiations. It's an absolute non-starter. So back to the negotiations with Iran, the Americans must know that. What country would denude itself like that? It would make any sense. First, diplomatically would be humiliation. Economically, it would deprive them of a very important energy source. Despite what Trump says, they don't simply have enough oil so they don't need nuclear power.

You do need a mix. This shouldn't be controversial. And lastly, of course, the security measures, which is demanded on Iran, that is to give up all these foreign partnerships with the resistance to limit the amount of ballistic missiles. They're asking for them to essentially demilitarize and you know give up their deterrent which means that their security will depend on the goodwill of the United States and Israel. If Iran has been under a common constant threat since 1979 from the US and Israel

you need a deterrent. This is you know this is not taking the side of the Iranians, this is just common sense. So there's no way they can ever accept any of these things being demanded on them. But that's what I'm saying. If you want the nuclear deal to prevent proliferation, to have transparency and trust, it can be achieved. But then you have to do two things. First, recognize that they do have the right to civilian program. And then second, don't link this civilian program to all other corals that there is with Iran. So because then you're going to end up in a situation where you can try to sell to the public that Iran doesn't

want to make a deal. But it's only because it's been linked to all these external issues, which has nothing to do with the nuclear program. All right, let's switch gears to the United States. Excuse me, to Europe and Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said unequivocally, we'll play the clip for you, that the British were behind the drone attacks on Russian military.

In fact, he said he was 100% certain of it. He also believed that by inertia, because he knows how MI6 and CIA are wedded to each other, that the U S was probably involved, but he was certain about the British. I want to play this clip for you and then ask you how you read the relationship between the British, the French, the Germans on one side and the Russians on the other. Chris, cut number eight. It is obvious that the Ukrainian side is doing everything possible, but it would be absolutely

helpless without the support. I was tempted to say Anglo-Saxons, but probably without Saxons, just without the support of the British. Although you never know, probably by inertia, some US special forces would be involved in that. But the British are actually behind all those things, I'm 100% sure. Would he have said 100% sure the British were behind it without certainty, without Intel demonstrating conclusively and unequivocally that the Brits were behind it? No, I'm guessing he has some good reasons to suspect this, but the British have been really, I

would say, the most aggressive ones here. They go further, especially their special forces, go further than their American counterparts. So the British are very much front and center in this proxy war against Russia. And there's a lot of evidence behind there which suggests that it's very unlikely that the intelligence services of the US and Britain was not involved. Keep in mind that we learned the day after the coup in 2014 that the first thing the Americans and the British and the Ukrainians did and the new government was to form a partnership between the intelligence agencies and as the American media has confirmed as well, this relied

on rebuilding Ukrainian security services from scratch to make sure that they were loyal allies against Russia since you know they traditionally have been very closely allied with Russia. Then a few was a few weeks ago was also another story from the New York Times, which outlined exactly how close or how deeply involved the United States had been in this war. That is, most of the decision making and the war planning was made by the United States out of Germany. So we know how close the cooperation is. So if this operation has been planning for, been planned for 18 months, which includes a whole year out of the Biden administration, are we going to really say that the United States had no knowledge

of this? I mean, it doesn't make any sense at all. So I think that it's quite obvious that there are Western powers involved. If there are Western powers you can be very sure the British are involved. To what extent the Americans are involved? I suspect the war were involved but perhaps the Russians are toning down the reference to the Americans given that they're making some advancements in negotiations. The British have exposed their own assets, whether it's human beings or military equipment to lawful attack by the Russians. Yeah. Yeah. Well, this is the problem that this is now we moved a bit away from the whole,

uh, idea of proxy war. There's a lot of direct war going on now. And, uh, and,. And again, this is not just a regular attack, even though an attack on Russian cities would be a reckless escalation, but this is an attack on Russia's nuclear forces. It's nuclear deterrent. What does this signal? Does the counterpart, that is the British and know, play with the idea of being able to do a successful first strike in the future. I mean, why would anyone go to this length? And if you, you know, you have to be aware that the great powers, they're very paranoid

about their nuclear deterrent. If someone tomorrow began bombing and attacking America's nuclear deterrent, you could be very sure that their worst fears would be dictating the policies which would follow. So here is, this is really absurd what we're gonna play for you now. This is Senator Lindsey Graham, the most aggressive proponent of war in the United States Congress.

I think you're familiar with him as repellent as he can be, interrogating but really answering for himself, answering his own questions. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, and the General Cain, who was the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is the highest ranking American military personnel. This is somewhat humorous, but also dangerous, but I'd like your thoughts on it. which is the highest ranking American military personnel.

This is somewhat humorous, but also dangerous, but I'd like your thoughts on it. Chris, cut number 16. Is Putin gonna stop in Ukraine? I don't believe he is, sir. I think he'll go until- What do you think, Secretary? Is he gonna stop?

Remains to be seen, Senator. Well, he says he's not. You know, this is the 30s all over. It doesn't remain to be seen. Well, he says he's not You know, this is the 30s all over it doesn't remain to be seen he tells everybody around what he wants to do Are you familiar with his military buildup in terms of armaments? It's well beyond what we need to do take Ukraine. Listen, I think I like what you're doing I just think we got to get this stuff, right? Iran And I think I like what you're doing. I just think we got to get this stuff right. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon cause still use it. They're homicidal maniacs who are religious Nazis. China is an expansionist power who will take Taiwan.

If we don't deter them, Russia will dismember Ukraine and keep going if we don't stop them. When did president Putin say he was interested in dismembering Ukraine and taking other countries? I would defy Senator Graham to answer that. Do you know? You monitor this stuff, we monitor this stuff. No, this makes no sense. This is transpiring in his head. There's no such evidence. And furthermore, this whole idea that this is a campaign after Ukraine is taken, they will move on to the rest of Europe. Keep in mind that back until 2014, Russia had never even laid claim to Crimea. No one in Moscow was talking

about seizing Crimea. They recognized the territorial integrity of Ukraine. What they did was, recognized the territorial integrity of Ukraine. What they did was, once the coup was there and they saw what was coming, that they would eventually be pushed out of Crimea where they were renting the naval base, their Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol. They knew that they were going to get kicked out and replaced by NATO after a while. So they seized Crimea. Even the worst anti-Russian war hawks wouldn't recognize that taking Crimea was a reaction to the coup. So in other words, it doesn't mean that you have to say it's legal or justified, it just means that this is a reaction. It's not an expansionist objective. And furthermore, keep in mind that the whole Minsk agreement was premised on the idea that

the Donbass region will be reintegrated into Ukraine if they would give it some autonomy which could prevent NATO expansion but also give language cultural rights to the Russian speakers who live there. So there's no indications that that territorial conquest was the motivation behind any of this conflict. Indeed, it's become a symptom of the conflict which began due to a broken European security architecture. So it's, no, I think like Linse Graham, he, yeah, he's, more European powers.

I know you're in Norway and not in Great Britain, but do you have a feeling if the British public wants its government picking a fight with a country a hundred times the size of Britain? It's something strange within the European countries. The leaderships now, they are completely obsessed with Russia. within the European countries. The Again, this also has to be seen in a context that is, you know, currently a lot of NATO countries have attacked Russia directly with these long-range missiles. The British, French are talking about sending troops into Ukraine. They're talking about fighting the Russians. Politicians are.

So, given all of this, it would make sense for Russia to prepare for the worst. So again, there's two ways to enhance your security. You can deter or you can but also reassure the opponent. We don't reassure Russia of anything anymore. We keep more or less threatening it with war. So why wouldn't they develop a powerful army in the rear? It makes sense. But I've seen the same rhetoric from the Germans.

I heard a German general say, oh, look at the Russians. They're building up a lot of military force close to the Finnish border. That proves that they have plans after they're done with Ukraine. But again, this is just ludicrous. We expanded NATO into Finland. Now Finland, which was the largest success story of neutrality, is now NATO's largest frontline against Russia. The Russians revived a military regiment there to restore deterrent against Finland now that they're not a neutral country anymore. So we do these things, then we see the reaction coming, and we pretend as if it happened in a vacuum. That is an indication of imperial ambitions.

It's extremely dishonest, but this is where we are. Professor Glenn Deason, thank you, my dear friend. Thank you for accommodating my schedule, and thank you for letting me pick your brain. We look forward to seeing you again next week, as usual on the show. All the best. Look forward to it. Thanks judge. Thank you Coming up today at two o'clock this afternoon professor Jeffrey Sachs at three o'clock professor John Mearsheimer at four o'clock

We think we found him Max Blumenthal judge Napolitano for judging freedom MUSIC