Judging Freedom - Prof. Glenn Diesen : European Complicity in Israeli Aggression?

Episode Date: June 20, 2025

Prof. Glenn Diesen : European Complicity in Israeli Aggression?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

you Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today's Thursday, June 19th, 2025, Professor Glenn Deason joins us now. Professor Deason, always a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. I'd like to be able to pick your brain and prevail in your knowledge of European reaction to the events in Iran and Israel and European complicity, if there is any, in the end stages of the war in Ukraine. We'll start with Israel. Is there evidence

of the involvement of European intelligence agencies in support of the Israeli attack on Iran last week? Well, there's been some refueling flights, I think, German but also British, but again, this hasn't been confirmed as far as I am aware. But it's mostly the political support which is being provided. That is that the German Chancellor Mertz, he made the argument that Israel is doing the dirty work for us. And there after also passing a resolution to effectively give legitimacy for Israel's attack on Iran. He also saw Kaya Callas, which is the EU foreign policy chief, who argued that she responded by saying that Israel has

right to defend itself. Apparently Iran does not have the right to defend itself and she also made the statement that Iran must return to the negotiation table which is also an astonishing remark given that Iran was at the negotiation table. They were in the middle of negotiation when they were subjected to a surprise attack and it's Israel that doesn't want to stop. And we also had a recent meeting with the G7. Again, they go through the motions, they say this, you know, the benign words that they want the de-escalation, but they don't actually want an end to the fighting. They didn't want to call for a ceasefire. So what exactly is de-escalation here? They certainly do not condemn the attacks on Iran's nuclear reactors. They don't condemn a surprise attack, a war of aggression. They

don't criticize in a car bombing, bombing of TV station, murdering of journalists in Iran. So it's mostly a display of support for Israel. And but again, they don't have much a narrative to lean into. So they pretty much go with the old tested one, which is that Israel has the right to defend itself. But it's not proving to be very convincing, given that this was, again, a surprise attack by Israel. Chris, play the CNN montage or have it ready, Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Professor Deason, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been arguing for 30 years that Iran is within days of having a nuclear weapon. As recently as two months ago, the American director of National Intelligence testified before the United States Congress under oath that it is the consensus of the intelligence testified before the United States Congress under oath that it is the consensus of the intelligence community by which she meant hers, MI6 and Mossad that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and has not been working on one since 2002. before we play this clip, have the G7 leaders fallen for the Netanyahu argument notwithstanding intel evidence, substantial intel evidence to the contrary? Well, I don't think it really matters anymore.

I think the pursuit of truth is not the main objective. I think there's a desperate effort to push a narrative because usually in a head of wars, governments have some time to spend, well significant time to develop a narrative to justify war. Indeed we saw this with Bush and the weapons of mass destruction. You build up consent and support for a war. You didn't really have it this time. Indeed, this is part of the problem with a surprise attack when Trump one day says, you know, we closed the deal and then the next day striking Iran. So I think for this reason, yeah, the narratives they're leaning into are very weak. But so they're not really commenting much on these reports, which kind of contradicts the whole argument. But if I can just add,

I don't think they really believe that this has anything to do with Iran's nuclear program anyways, because as Trump has said, he doesn't even want Iran to have a civilian nuclear program, which is Iran's right as a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. Also in the negotiations, they linked this to Iran's ballistic missiles, its partnership with foreign partners, be it Yemen, Hezbollah, Hamas. So they linked the nuclear issue to everything, effectively

demanding a capitulation of Iran as a regional power. So I don't think they really believe that this is about the nuclear program to begin with. It's probably about dislodging the Ayatollah from power. I mean Netanyahu, for all of his deceptions and lies has actually been pretty candid about that. Israel does not want another power in its neighborhood. It wants to be able to be the bully with impunity and Iran simply won't allow that. At least that's my view. Watch this clip of Netanyahu. It goes back to the 1990s. Tell me if there's any truth in all these utterances. The deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close. And Iran, by the way, is also outpacing Iraq in the development of ballistic missile systems

that they hope will reach the eastern seaboard of the United States within 15 years. By next spring, at most, by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having the fissile material for an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs. If not stopped Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year, it could be within a few months, less than a year.

Any truth to any of that Professor Deason? No and I think you're quite correct with your comment that this is motivated by the desire for regime change. Besides Netanyahu, you also have more honesty coming from the likes of Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz. They're quite open that they want the government to be removed. And I think this is the objective. Now the reference to weapons of mass destruction, you know, you see this used not just in Iraq, but yes, Syria as well. It's a very convincing argument to legitimize war. But it has to be pointed out again that Iran, if it was really about a nuclear weapon, Iran has said it doesn't want a nuclear weapon,

and it's also been willing to sign agreements for intrusive inspections. And this was the JCPOA, but this is what the first Trump administration pulled out of unilaterally while the Iranians were fulfilling their obligations. So if we wanted simply to ensure that they don't acquire nuclear weapons and if that's what they want, I think that's a good cause. I think it will be very destabilizing. Indeed, Iran also recognized it will be destabilizing. If they acquired a nuclear weapon, so would Saudi Arabia. So you would spark a security competition which no one would actually gain from. So I think that they have the reason and the rationality not to develop a nuclear weapon. And they will not discuss why and how Israel has a nuclear weapon without signing the

non-proliferation treaty. How can this be? The American government doesn't want to talk about it. Netanyahu won't talk about it. Well, I agree. Imagine if there was a deal in which Iran would subject itself to very intrusive inspections, commit itself non-nuclear weapon, but then you have to get something in return as well, which would be Israel not getting nuclear weapons, because at the moment this whole thing is very hypocritical. That is, Israel is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. It has nuclear weapons, it allows no inspections. Meanwhile, it demands that Iran should have all these inspections, even though Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty and by the way,

therefore also has the right to develop a civilian nuclear program. The way usually international law works and arms treaties would be you accept mutual constraints, but we don't do this with Iran or anyone else for that sake. It's always, you have to submit yourself to our demands or we'll bomb you. I think it would be much more helpful if we could actually meet the Iranian security concerns and we can meet halfway, I think they would be willing to go a long way. Instead, there's a reasonable accusations that their willingness to accept this arms control and the inspections by the IAEA has resulted in them essentially handing over a lot of intelligence to Israel, which is why a lot of nuclear scientists are being assassinated and the Israelis have to know what to target.

You mentioned weapons of mass destruction. See if any of this brings back memories. Chris, cut number 26. Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort, no effort, to disarm as required by the international community. Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass

destruction. At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger. They have ballistic missiles that can now reach deep into Europe and soon could reach the United States. You want these people to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to your cities? Today it's Tel Aviv, tomorrow it's New York. Same old discredited domino theory argument going back to President Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War. Today Tel Aviv, tomorrow New York. History repeats itself, Professor. Yeah, this is a good way of framing wars and legitimizing them. Again, when you want to legitimize a war, you want to strip

the situation of all complexity and you want to create a very simple binary solution that is, either you accept this war bombing Iran, otherwise you risk an attack by Iran, even though there's other options, you're supporting the government and everything is done or the regime, as we say, and you essentially have forced to choose. So do you choose our side or Iran's side? And now you divide the population into effectively patriots versus traitors. So it's a very sneaky way of creating consent for war, but it's something we do in every single war. So it's quite interesting to watch these clips because it's essentially the same playbook every time.

Yes, yes. Are you able to have your finger on the pulse of how Europeans feel? I don't mean Mertz and Stammer and Macron and von der Leyen, but but average Europeans. I mean, do they want their governments aiding the US and Israel to invade Iran any more than they want their governments to aid Ukraine to fight Russia? Well, I haven't seen polls from Europe. I've seen polls from the United States where you

see the majority do not want a war with Iran. From my impressions, this is what I get a sense of here as well, that in Europe they do not want a war. Of course, there's very many different European countries with different sentiments, but overall I don't think they want this. And this is interesting because we're being always fed a very heavy dose of propaganda. That is the only thing we know about Iran is that they're evil, they hate the West, and they want a nuclear weapon. I don't think any of this has to be true. But again, the way that Iran is framed in the media, you would never get anything positive.

And nonetheless, you see a huge skepticism. And I do think that people who are somewhat aware, they know that this is not simply just another dangerous military opportunistic path in the Middle East. I think most people recognize that Iran is something very, very different. This is not Iraq.

Their population is much larger, almost twice the size. Their territories is many times larger. Their country is effectively a fortress of mountains, which prevents land forces from coming in. They can shut down the global economy. They can hide thousands of missiles underground. You can't really defeat Iran, which begs then the question if Iraq was a failure, Libya was a failure, Afghanistan, Syria, yeah, we can go on.

This is going to be the worst. This is going to be, you know, there's been military games, war games in which you find out that it's not easy at all to defeat Iran on the contrary. So I think people who are somewhat informed, they can see that this is going to be an unmitigated disaster. And now that Trump says, well, we only accept the complete surrender of Iran, this will never happen. So the only option now is endless war

without an exit strategy, which is a good summary of everything we've done in that region for the past 30 years. Except now we're facing a very powerful adversary at the time when the collective West is severely weakened. So it's, yeah, I remember I was in your program the day before they, or the evening before they began bombing and I saw all the movements taking place

and I still refused to believe that they could be this crazy. Yes, we all refuse to believe they could be this crazy. Now, can the President of the United States be this crazy? Back when the Tony Blair government asked the British House of Commons to endorse the George W. Bush-inspired invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The late great Anthony Wedgwood Ben, a fierce fighter against war, gave a remarkable speech on the floor of the House of Commons. Here is the two minute, Chris, the longer version, here is the two minute essence of what the great Antony Wedgwood Ben said.

I'll finish us by saying this. War is an easy thing to talk about. There are not many people of the generation that remember it. The right honorable gentleman served with the six and the last war. I never killed anyone, but I wore uniform. But I was in London in the blitz of 1940, living in the Milbank Tower where I was born. Some different ideas have come in since. And every night I went down to the shelter in Thames House.

Every morning I saw Dockland burning, 500 people were killed in Westminster one night by a landmine. It was terrifying. Aren't Arabs terrified? Aren't Iraqis terrified? Don't Iraq and Iraqis weep when their children die? Doesn't bombing strengthen their determination? What fools we are to live in a generation for which war is a computer game for our children and just an interesting little channel for news item. Every member of parliament tonight who votes for the government motion will be consciously and deliberately accepting the responsibility for the deaths of innocent people if the war begins,

as I fear it will. Now that's for their decision to take, but this is a quite unique debate in my parliamentary experience where we are asked to share responsibility for a decision we will not really be taking with consequences for people who have no part to play in the brutality of the regime which we are dealing with. I finish with this. On 24 October 1945, the former Prime Minister from Bexley and Olcetkot will remember it, the United Nations Charter was passed. The words of that charter etched into my mind and moved me even as I think of them. We, the people of the United Nations, determined to save future generations, succeeding generations, from the scourge of war which twice in our

lifetime has caused untold suffering to mankind. That was the pledge of that generation to this generation, and it would be the greatest betrayal of all if we voted to abandon the Charter and take unilateral action and pretend we were doing it in the name of the international community And I shall vote against the motion for the reasons that I've given them There is no great debate in the House of Representatives or the Senate of the United States of America on this For all of the wrongful decisions that were made by the House of Commons, at least they had a debate, at least there was an Anthony Wedgewood, Ben. There's nothing here, it's a decision of one man made in a subterranean room surrounded by people telling him what he wants to hear.

No, I agree, but I also think it's worth noting where this message came from. Again, an elderly statesman now who's passed away. And this is a real problem because it's said that every generation has to learn to fear war. And we've had many decades of relative peace and stability and that former generation who experienced also the Second World War and all the horrors of war, they're all passing away now, and the lessons of war is also gone. So there's not any healthy fear of war anymore. And to make matters much worse, we had now over three decades of a unipolar order

in which war is something that doesn't happen here. It happens far away in other places. And again, we can sit and justify whatever we're doing. Usually we do it by referencing democracy and freedom and ideals that we hold there. But there's this also what I suggested, this, this always the need, if you're going to go and bomb other people need to dehumanize the opponent, again, they do have, you know, these are the same fellow human beings. And all we have to do now is make references to terrorism, and it's enough to begin to support a genocide. And it's not just that the people we are slaughtering in other places,

which is a disaster, but it's also hollowing out the soul of our countries as well. When we have to legitimize what shouldn't be legitimized just on a daily basis. It's quite heartbreaking. I wish we had these kind of diplomats and politicians today because I don't see them among our own political class. In the American Congress, there's just a few and the leadership does the best it can to shut them down. The House of Representatives doesn't permit debate. They give you one or two minutes.

The Senate, you can talk as long as you want, but you're talking to an empty chamber. Just to switch gears for a minute before we finish. And I thank you for your eloquent analysis of all this, Professor. It's such a joy to be able to do this Q&A with you. I'm switching to Ukraine. Are the European governments prepared to pick up the slack if Donald Trump terminates the volume, the level of American aid to Ukraine?

Well, I think it already is for two reasons. One, they want to walk away from this because they have new wars in the Middle East, but also they want to shift folks to Asia. But now, with the war against Iran, air defenses and other weaponry has to be redirected because Israel is a higher priority than Ukraine. So the US, its absence now in Ukraine is being felt. And I think that the Europeans are now desperate to fill the shoes of America, but they don't have the money, they don't have the weapons.

So it's simply not going to happen. They don't have the industrial capability to ramp up production either. So it's not, there's nothing they can really do. But still, they don't want to even talk to the Russians, you know, so much for calling for the escalation and diplomacy. They don't even want to pick up the phone. And, but again, I think this all the war propaganda has something to do with this because anything that's in our interest now can be demonized as being pro-Russians. That is, we can't recognize the security concerns of Russia because then you will be pro-Russian. The Germans, they're not even allowed to buy oil from Russia because that's pro-Russian,

so they have to buy Russian oil from India, which makes no sense at all. And the problem is if you want security, you have to consider Russian security. If you want prosperity, you do have to reopen some trade with Russia. But everything that's in our interest is effectively labeled pro-Russian. So we've more or less been banned from acting in our own national interest, and the problems are starting to pile up. So the idea that us, the Europeans, can fill the shoes of America and go and fight Russia

is ludicrous. America and Europe together for three years couldn't defeat Russia, and now the Ukrainian military is falling apart. It has a manpower shortage, it has a shortage of weaponry. And at this point in time time when the Russians are stronger than ever The Europeans are filling up What the Americans aren't doing anymore? It's no it's absurd. This is only

making the war Drag out and resulting in more deaths and this is something that the Ukrainians are waking up to as well Professor D's and thank you very much great analysis as always on both of these hot spots. Deeply appreciated. Thank you for accommodating my schedule. I look forward to seeing you next week. Thank you, Judge. Of course. And coming up at two o'clock today, who's very hot under the collar about all of this, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. MUSIC