Judging Freedom - Prof. Glenn Diesen : The US Empire is Weakening – Iran Accelerates Its Fall

Episode Date: March 18, 2026

Prof. Glenn Diesen : The US Empire is Weakening – Iran Accelerates Its FallSee 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. Pragically, 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, March 18th, 2000, 26, Professor Glenn Deeson will be with us in just a moment. On is the U.S. Empire weakening? And is the war in Iran accelerating that? But first, this. Don't you just cringe when people say, I told you so. Sorry, I told you.

Gold and silver would reap the benefits due to excessive money printing, inflation, and global uncertainty. It's here. It's happened. Gold and silver have reached all-time high. Did you call Lear Capital and buy some? It's not too late. Experts are predicting higher prices ahead. Why?

Nothing has changed. Geopolitical chaos, cost of living crises, and a weaker dollar are driving central banks to boost their gold reserves. Forecast suggests gold could hit $6,000 an ounce and silver $200 an ounce. Even Morgan Stanley ditched the 60-40 rule for 60-2020, putting 20, 20, putting 20,000. percent into precious metals. They're getting educated and you should too. Call the best in the business and the people I trust, Lear Capital. Get their reports, get the facts, get some gold and silver. Tell them the judge sent you and get up to $20,000 in bonus gold or silver. Call 800, 511, 4620, or go to Learjudge Nap.com. Professor Deeson, welcome here, my friend, and thank you for your time

to the relatively breaking news. The American and Israeli jets or missiles have attacked a very, very significant Iranian gas field. Can you tell us what you know about the significance of this and the likely economic effect of its destruction? Well, the attacks have been against South Paris in Iran. that is it's considered to be the world's largest natural gas field so obviously this will present a significant economic shock to iran but it will also be an economic shock to the wider world of course and that's only if this was an isolated case but as we know iran will retaliate against this and i expect in a massive way so there's already some reports that iranian missiles have hit Saudi Arabia i haven't

as in all the details. But the thing is that Iran has the ability to hit all this energy facilities across the Gulf states. They have the ability to hit the desalination plants. They can't strike the U.S. mainland. So these are the kind of targets they will go after. Economic targets of the countries who have been used as frontline states, as well as, of course, American bases.

And the escalation will go up. And I think part of the reason why Iran hasn't, well, essentially destroyed a lot of these energy facilities across the region is because then, of course, the US and Israel would do the same to Iran. But it appears that they have already done this now. So that kind of opens the floodgates. And well, from the Iran perspective, the failure to retaliate would be then irresponsible because that would involve the opponent to do more of this. So I would expect to see a very dramatic escalation over the next days. Wouldn't you think that the American and Israeli planners of this immoral barbarous war of choice would have taken into account the disastrous consequences to innocent people around the world

who will lose access to fuel necessary for their survival, or who will find it so expensive as to be ruinous? Well, you would hope so, but I don't see any indication of that at all. Indeed, if you go back to June, you saw this attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, which could have had a massive nuclear contamination and humanitarian environmental disaster, but they still did it. And indeed, right now as well, we see reports from today that the Bush Air Nuclear Plant was almost hit.

And of course, there hasn't been any reports of any nuclear contamination or anything of the sort. But we also see the assassination of Iranian leaders. We have this massive escalation going on. And again, the Iranians will retaliate and will continue to rush up this escalation ladder. And it doesn't really make any sense. You escalate in this instance if you think that you have an escalation control. That is that opponent at some point in time will have to accept that the costs are too much and then they will capitulate. But as we know, the Iranians see this as an existential threat of fight for survival.

So they will simply have to go up the escalation ladder as well. And when they retaliate, you're going to see similar humanitarian disasters, lack of fuel across the world. And this is something that will put a shock to the entire global economy. What is the view of this war from Europe, from the EU elites, and from average folks, as best you can ascertain, Professor? Well, I think initially when the US bombed, people were a bit on the fence. They were waiting to see which way it was going. If there would be some regime change and the US would be able to install someone favorable, then, of course, they would applaud it and be all on board. But given that it's gone, well, very poorly, I would add predictably so.

There's been some efforts to distance themselves. That is, you see this among some European leaders, especially when they're asked to contribute to open up the Strait of Vermeuse, which Trump invited them to do. You know, they make the point that they weren't informed ahead of the strike what the US was going to do. And now, of course, when things are going bad, they're invited to participate in a catastrophe.

So there's skepticism, so everyone is obligatory to condemn the Iranian government, but there's a lot of criticism and concern about the war that has been unleashed. But that being said, the EU is 27 member states. They look in a bit in different directions. Some see this as being a massive disaster, fear why the war. war, some are afraid it can divert resources away from Ukraine. People like Merz and Germany thinks an opportunity to show their loyalty to Trump, so Trump might reciprocate by taking a greater interest in Ukraine and the war against Russia.

So they're all going a bit in different directions at the moment. Wow. What is your understanding of the Kremlin's view of either Donald Trump as a world leader or this war that he has initiated with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Well, I think they see what's happening and they're taking a lot of lessons for themselves. Because I think initially there was a lot of cautious optimism when Trump won, because unlike Biden or any of the European leaders, he actually talked about diplomacy and he did open diplomacy. He started talking with the Russians again after a three-year break from Washington. And indeed, he spoke about ending the war in New York.

Ukraine. I think they all realized that ending it in the 24 hours was a bit overly optimistic, but at least there was an interest there to improve relations. Again, they saw this as having a rational foundation, that is, that the US has an interest of getting Russia on our side of the ledger instead of pushing them to heart towards China. But, you know, after a year of disappointment, they're now wondering, you know, if this is just talk. And of course, now that we see, this very deceptive diplomacy, not once but twice, diplomacy used to launch a surprise attack on Iran. The Russians have to begin to review their own history now, because as we remember back in June, when the first attack happened on Iran, then in the same time you saw a surprise attack

on Russia's nuclear retaliatory capabilities, that is its nuclear bombers. And now in December there was this attack on Valdai, which were assumed to be an effort to to kill the Russian president. So now they have to ask themselves to what extent Trump is, yeah, it's just a fraud, whether or not it's actual genuine in his diplomacy or if it's just stringing them along. Do the Chinese feel similarly? I'm not sure how they see this, but surely they're watching what we're watching. I think they're a bit shocked by the complete absence of, yeah, any proper rules of engagement, international law, but also some care for the wider global economy,

because everything now is just being torched, literally, as we saw now with this attack on the South Paris, this massive, well, the world's largest gas field. So I think they're also concerned. As we know, Trump and Xi Jinping were supposed to meet next month in April, but Trump has postponed it now. I think his plan was to meet and essentially show off his latest prize, which would have been the regime change in Iran, and used this as a strong card. But instead, he's now stuck in this massive mess.

And yeah, he postponed a meeting. So I think they're also worried about the same. That is an effort by the United States to reverse its relative. decline and enhance its position vis-à-vis the other great powers but in the process in destroying a lot of the international system how harmful to the EU economy has been the closing of the strait of Hormuz to all but Iran's friends oh it's been very damaging both for oil and LNG that is the liquefied natural gas and the European leaders just

pat of themselves on the shoulders and celebrated themselves for liberating themselves from Russian energy. And now, of course, they suddenly have been cut off from the Middle East, especially the Qatari, LNG, I think, is something that's especially painful. So Europeans were already facing massive problems. They have a lack of supply, reliable supply of cheap energy. As a result, energy prices goes far up. That means the energy-intensive industries are no longer competitive. So you see a de-industrialization.

And across the supply chain, this has a shock effect across the economy. So especially countries like Germany are suffering greatly because of this. And again, it does make any sense. Energy security is usually defined as reliable supply of cheap energy. This is achieved by having many suppliers. So you have some Russian, you have some Azerbaijan, Qatar, America, American so but instead the EU defined energy security as cutting themselves off from Russia because well they they're all Rosophobes essentially in Brussels and so they

they cut themselves off from options which meant to become more dependent on the US which it could take advantage of and now of course the Middle East has been cut off so this forces Europeans to also reconsider some of the the steps they've been taking towards Russia that perhaps we you know the Europeans can't live without Russian energy after all I mean would the Europeans buy cheap energy from Russia today well they already do but they buy it through India for example because it's you know it's all like virtue signaling almost that is they want to show that they're boycotting Russian energy but they still need it so it's easier to buy it

through through a third party so the Russian Center the oil to India, the India sells it on with a markup, of course, to the Europeans. But, no, there are some discussions. Indeed, now that things are going very poorly in Ukraine, and of course the energy problems are escalating and the international conflicts are destabilizing the international system, I think you have more incentives to try to find a solution to this war. Indeed, you saw the Belgium Prime Minister suggest it's time to normalize relations with Russia,

Yes. Some efforts by France to set up some kind of negotiation, even the president of Finland, the Stubb, which is, you know, Russiophob to the core of his being. Even he suggests that perhaps we should begin to restore diplomatic relations. Oh boy, they better not let Mrs. Vanderlion hear that. Well, she's, yeah, she's, yeah, I don't think she's the last one who will consider. right right in relation so how how has this netanyahu slash trump war of choice damage the u.s geopolitically in terms of what other countries think of it or fear about it well um part of the strength

of the united states is a bit like Israel as both you know one is a global hegemon the other one in regional is that the assumption that they're all powerful and if the US is even if it would win the war but come out significantly weakened or wounded this would then yeah harm its reputation and we know this this is often cited as a key concern for example pulling out of Afghanistan after 20 years the main concern was you know this will undermine the credibility but I think it goes way beyond this it's not just the credibility of essentially being the dominant power, but it's also the means it has used because the way you see, for example, Hegeseth speak about war now, as if the rules of engagement and international law are some kind of a, you know, it's a political correctness. All of this is creating a lot of concerns.

And also besides the, you know, the war of aggression, the war crimes, there's, you know, a lot of the lying also doesn't mean. make any sense. I'm thinking then, for example, of the killing of those 170 young girls in Iran. I mean, I assume that this was an accident. So, but, but why, why begin to lie about it? Pretend as if the Iranians have Tomahawks and launched it at themselves. I mean, this is, it's very strange to watch. And, and lastly, it's also, I think, some surprises that how poorly this was planned, both the war planning and the narrative control thereafter. It's... Yeah.

Didn't the Americans and Israelis know that the Iranians have an asymmetric way of resisting them? They're not going to march into battle like the red coats against the Americans in 1776, but they're going to fire at different times from different places at different targets, at different speeds. Yeah. And then again, this was the most predictable response. As you said, it's an asymmetric warfare. They can't send their warships and missiles all the way to the United States.

Their ballistic missiles don't even reach the U.S. So they can't fight in the same way. So what do they do? And this is the critical part. They're facing an existential threat and they have to find another way of fighting against the U.S. So what exactly would they do in such an instance? I saw Trump make the argument that there's a lot of experts out there, he said, but none of them ever predicted that Iran would attack all of these countries,

all the Gulf states and all the American military bases there. To me, this is just astonishing. This was very predictable. Indeed, I run as host this podcast, and we had people on like Said Mohammed Marandi, who essentially every interview for weeks before the war made it very clear. the Americans attack us, the first thing we will do is begin to bomb all their military bases across the entire region, was closed down the Strait of Hormuz for a simple reason that this is very different than from the June War. If the US attacks us directly, it becomes an existential threat,

and we will have to fight with every means we have to survive. So this is why they wouldn't go slowly up the escalation ladder, but they would hit out right away. But yet, I'm not sure if Trump is lying, or if someone just gave him bad information, that this was somehow unthinkable. Because we also heard from the Wall Street Journal that there's some reports suggesting that Trump dismissed the idea of the Iranians even closing down the Strait-over-Muss. I mean, this is the main instrument they have

to put pressure on the United States. And somehow this was dismissed. And now Trump reportedly is angry with some of the military leadership because it's not possible to open up the Strait-over Moose. I mean, this again should have been obvious. Correct, correct. With cheap weapons, there's no way to open it up by force. And so it's very strange that these are issues being discussed now.

This should have been discussed long before. Correct. Correct. But you know, we have a secretary of defense who calls himself a secretary of war who's a maniac when it comes to killing him. Probably, probably, obviously it wasn't there. I don't know. But I know his personality.

I worked with him for 10 years at 5. news. He probably promised the president whatever the president demanded. He probably said, oh, don't worry about it. Our Navy will open up the Strait of Hormuz, not even calculating with the experts the impossibility of doing that. Again, I'm not sure where he would get his information from. But, no, I agree. He's a bit of loose cannon, the language, there's too much bluster, I think. And Trump has a tendency to do the same,

that is lean into this rhetoric that, you know, we're all powerful, we can do what we want. And you kind of see this whenever something goes wrong. But I don't really understand where Hegsef is coming from because, yeah, as you said, a lot of this is very responsible. and a lot of the calculations are just very wrong, but predictably wrong as well. What do diplomats think of the United States after this escapade? Well, the US becomes seen as less reliable, I guess.

And of course, it's too much back and forth as well. I mean, we've seen speeches where Trump say that, you know, we've been abandoned by our NATO allies. They don't want to help us. And then, you know, 30 seconds later saying, we don't need them. We're all powerful. And then later on goes back to how disappointed we're not getting help.

And they kind of like a little bit all over the place. So it's very difficult to adjust to. Also, when the British suggested, we might send some warships down to the Middle East. I think then Trump said, well, we already won. Now it's too late. And then he says later on, actually, we need you to help us open the Strait of Hormuz. And then when they don't do it, he goes on and insulting them. So it's not great diplomacy.

And I'm not speaking as someone who's especially empathetic towards these European leaders. I think they are, you know, strategically absent. There's a lot to criticize about them. But Trump has been playing his cards very, well, unwise, I think. Yes, yes. The investigative reporter Jeremy Skahill of international repute is reporting that two Iranian figures have told them that Steve Whitkoff is feverishly texting Foreign Minister Arachi, Iranian Foreign Minister Arachi several times a day, to try to talk to him about a ceasefire. and front minister irachi is not even answering mr whitkoff's texts does that make sense to you well yes well first i think the iranians kind of dismiss whitkoff and koshner for that matter as almost being

israeli assets so they don't but in terms of the ceasefire the foreign minister of iran also made this point that would they don't want to ceasefire they wanted end to the war so again it It has some similarities with the Ukrainian proxy war. That is a ceasefire is just something temporary, which allows the adversary to regroup, replenish, and then come back and strike. So essentially what they want, as the Russians formulated, is to address the underlying causes. And yeah, so there would actually be a way to put an end to this.

And I think this is difficult. It would take a long, difficult negotiation. And at the moment, of course, there's no trust. And we're in the middle of a war, which escalates very quickly. So it's very hard to see diplomacy paving the way to some kind of a peace here. So at the moment, I think they would reject a ceasefire. Because, again, at this point in time, what would it achieve? Trump could go back, claim it was a victory.

And most likely, the US and Israel would say, simply regroup and they will be back again in a few months. So I think they will, they see that time is on their side. If they can just keep this going and essentially just survive, then the US and Israel would suffer many problems. Economic, lack of air defenses, shortage of ammunition, the logistics is also becoming difficult, the support at home because this is not a good war for Trump.

As we saw now, for example, with Joe Kent, resigning. So there's a lot of problems. So they think that the time is on their side. And as Trump said himself, we run out of military targets to strike. So that means if they want to continue to escalate and continue the war, they're going to have to shift to civilian targets essentially and or economic. So I think they run and see that if you keep this going at some point, the US and Israel would have to be willing to make some concessions. Professor Deason, thank you very much, my dear friend. Deeply appreciated, but look forward to seeing you again next week.

All the best. That's my pleasure. As always, thank you, Judge. Thank you. And coming up at 3 o'clock on all of this, the great Phil Giraldi, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.