Judging Freedom - Prof. Glenn Diesen : Why the EU Rebuffs Trump

Episode Date: March 26, 2026

Prof. Glenn Diesen : Why the EU Rebuffs TrumpSee 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 Thursday, March 26th, 2006, Professor Glenn Deeson joins us now. Professor Deeson always a pleasure, my dear friend. Is there a consensus in Europe, whether among elites or among ordinary folks,

that the U.S. invasion of Iran is Israel's war, that Iran, in fact, did not pose a serious imminent threat to the United States of America? It's very difficult to sell the argument that there was an imminent threat. I think the reaction depends on how the war is going. When the U.S. first bombed, you saw a lot of leaders as well as journalists come out and more or less argue that along the lines of Trump, that this would make the world safer.

As they usually do in these kind of wars, they begin to discuss a very vilified characterization of the government in Iran as opposed to what can actually be achieved in this war, how legitimate it is, what is the end goal, is there an off-ramp, all of these things. So initially when it looked like things might go the way for Trump, there was some optimism. And now that things are going, well, poorly, suddenly they begin to speak of international law, they begin to speak about the legitimacy behind the whole thing

and the concern about the wider conflicts. So I think this was the benefit from essential Trump and not informing them in advance, so they didn't have to take an initial position. We now see that their opinions adjusting, again, based on how it's going. So there's no consensus now. Would European leaders, whether it's Mrs. von der Leyen or President Macron or Chancellor Merz or Prime Minister Sturmer, have expected some consultation from... President Trump before he started a war like this as all other modern US presidents have done?

Well, I think that was the expectation that the United States would alert its allies before starting such a massive war. And again, they weren't warned, you know, as Trump told, you know, was very dismissive of the Japanese as well when he was asked in the White House, why, why did you not alert your allies? and he was making this comment that, you know, well, the Japanese should know all about surprise attacks. It was a reprehensible comment, but a typical thoughtless one by him. Yeah, so I think this was kind of sentiment that, you know, they weren't warned, which initially was seen as something, you know, something rude, offensive, but then also, you know, not appropriate for allies.

But I think it became a bit of a rescue for them because, by not being told they didn't have to make a clear position. Indeed, as Trump was boasting that we already won, there was no initial pressure on them to join in the early phases. Because keep in mind, the Europeans got already burned on the genocide in Gaza. That is, after the Hamas attacked Israel, you know, all the Europeans lined up behind the US arguing that, you know, Israel has the right to do.

defend itself and once they were fully committed and the war got uglier and it was very obvious that it was not just massacres but it was a genocide the Europeans well essentially essentially had already dug into their position so all these governments became now complicit in genocide so I think this time around they had an opportunity not to get in early partly thanks to Trump so well here is Trump two days ago saying what you just said he said that he has already won the war. I mean, to me, this is inconceivable that it's based on reality, but, you know,

sort of said in an offhanded Trumpian way. I'd like your thoughts on a Chris number 13. Well, I think we're going to end it. I can't tell you for sure. You know, I don't like to say this. We've won this. This war has been won. The only one that likes to keep it going is the fake news.

I mean, the New York Times. You read the New York Times. it's like we're not winning a war where they have no Navy and they have no Air Force and they have no nothing. And we literally have planes flying over Tehran and other parts of their country. They can't do a thing about it. What was his goal? Was it air dominance or was it regime change? Was it destruction of ballistic missile capability? Was it destruction of nuclear capability, which he claimed was already destroyed in June?

I mean, that's part of the moral problem here. They never articulated a clear, achievable goal. Mossad persuaded Netanyahu who persuaded Trump. Well, we'll win it in the weekend. We'll kill the Ayatollah, and there'll be riots in the streets. What happened to that? Exactly, and I think that's a key problem. Let me just say that this ball first, that his whole comments that the war has been won,

and then later on he argues NATO has to come in and join. He undermines his own narrative. This is the problem of not having a cohesive narrative that this gives the Europeans an out why they don't have to assist. But you were correct, I think this is the key problem. When you end more like to be a layer of objectives, and again, we don't even know if they are achievable because we don't know what the objectives are. When they went in, we were told, or at least suggested that this was all about regime change.

Some suggested, you know, they were merely wanted to help protesters or liberating women. then suddenly it began to shift that it should limit their ballistic missiles, which is an easier out because this is an achievable objective simply by Iran firing a lot of missiles and drones at the US and Israel and its allies. Iran has limited its missile and drone capacity. But then also when the world doesn't really support the United States, we see that, then the narrative has to not just be pivoted to what is achievable, but also where there's some legitimacy. So suddenly they go back to the issue of they can't have nuclear weapons, but Trump already celebrated obliterating this. So there's too many, too much going back and forth, depending on

what they want. You know, it's the honest thing about regime change is something achievable by degrading its military capabilities. It's had legitimacy by proclaiming that after, preventing them from getting nuclear weapons. So he's a bit all over the place, which eventually backfires because there's no possibility now of declaring victory. I want to watch an interrogation of the number three person in the State Department by a Democratic member of the House of Representatives who's trying to get him to answer with a simple yes or no

if Israel has nuclear weapons. I mean, we all know Israel does, but we know that the United States officials are forbidden from saying this. This guy's under oath. Watch how he answers or doesn't answer. Chris, number 19. What is Israel's nuclear capability in terms of weapons? I can't comment on that specific question. I'd have to refer to the Israelis on that.

Does Israel have nuclear weapons? I'm not prepared to comment on that. on you're not prepared to comment on it it's a very basic question we are with an ally conducting a war against iran this war continues to escalate tell us something as congress as the oversight body what israel's nuclear capability in terms of weapons i can't comment on on on on that specific question you'd have to refer to the Israelis on that does that mean you don't know I can't comment on that, sir. You're the main person in charge of knowing this and understanding it.

Will you not give us an answer? I don't understand why this issue is so taboo when it's a basic question and we're in a war alongside Israel against Iran. We're dealing with the potential for nuclear fallout, and you won't answer this basic question. Well, again, it would be outside of my question. purview as the arms control and arm proliferation under secretary to discuss that specific question. Sir, that is a dereliction of duty. Isn't that ridiculous?

Yeah, it's, well, I understand the position that is that Israel wants strategic ambiguity. People should know that it has nuclear weapons, but it can't announce it because that would make Israel a rogue state. So it is problematic. I can see it from the Israeli perspective why they want to maintain strategic ambiguity in order to essentially have one set of rules for us and another one for the others. But it doesn't look good coming from, of course, American politicians that they, you know, if you're asked, do does Israel have nuclear weapons? And oh, we can't answer it. You know, you have to ask that question to a foreign power. It just, I think it fuels more resentment within the US for those asking whether or not this is Israel first or America first. If you can't even discuss the nuclear status of Israel, it's going to, I think, continue to fuel this division within essentially the America firsters. But it has a deeper problem, though. That is that Israel did not sign the non-proliferation treaty, which means that it's not even supposed to have civilian nuclear energy.

Meanwhile, Iran did sign a non-proliferation treaty, which means that they can't develop nuclear weapons. However, by signing it, they have the right for a civilian nuclear program. And they even accepted additional agreements such as the JCPOA, that is a nuclear deal, which allowed more intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. And still, this is not enough. So there is no common rules here. And the problem is what dictates the commitments of states. And it's just pure power.

That is the U.S. says, well, Israel will look the other way, whatever they want to do. We're not even going to comment on it. And, well, Iran, it doesn't matter what international laws say. They're not even allowed to have a civilian program. So it's not great for international law, but it's not also great for the U.S. political system either. The Pentagon is considering diverting U.S. military aid from Ukraine to its foray into Iran. How will the Europeans react to this? Well, they will not care for it. And again, this is part of their concern.

Because keep in mind, this seems a little bit like what happened with Ukraine. When under Biden, they largely provoked this war in Ukraine. And then in April of 2022, Biden as well as the UK sabotaged the peace agreement. They were able to get the Europeans on board by selling it as an easy war. And now, of course, it's four years later. And all the promises have gone away. And now the US is outsourcing the war to the Europeans. and now of course the US will it initially said we can sell the Europeans

weapons to continue fueling the proxy war in Ukraine but now of course they can't even do this given that they have another war against Iran so the Europeans won't be happy which is also one of the concerns about this this war in against Iran exactly because it diverts resources away from Ukraine both the military, the weapons, the money, but also the international focus. So the rhetoric of the Europeans tends to be, you know, it's illegal, that never stopped the Europeans in the past. They refer to regional chaos, obviously also hasn't prevented them in the past.

But overall, I think this is a key problem that it diverts a focus away from Ukraine. Here's another problem for the Europeans, our friend and colleague. seen this anywhere other than him. Gilbert Docterot reports that Trump has told Zelensky to give up the Donbos. How will the Europeans react to that? Well, that's most likely the compromise which was met in, which was reached in Alaska last year, because seemingly the compromise, which is speak about what the compromise that the Russians accepted was that, you know, they would freeze the borders of Kersen and Saooggi, but Donbass, that is the region of Lugansk and Donetsk, that this is out of the question, that this has to be, you know, sovereign Russian territory.

So in other words, a peace deal is now premised on two key components. One would be Ukraine restoring its neutrality, so no NATO membership, and the second would be for Ukraine to get out of Donbass. They don't hold anything anymore, almost in Lugansk, so it's simply just Donetsk. But these are good fortification lines built up over many years. So this is one of the reasons why Ukraine doesn't want to give up this territory. But for the Europeans as well, they're going to fight this tooth and nail, because if you look, the Europeans are doing everything they can now to prolong this war.

This is something that the Foreign Minister of Hungary also recently is. stated that, you know, they're the fighting peace with everything they have. So their main goal in these negotiations is essentially to make it sway Trump towards putting pressure on the Russians instead of putting it on Zelensky. So, no, they will not care for this at all. What do the Russians think of Trump now after this month-long foray into Iran? I think it shocked them to the core to some extent because the way we see now the efforts to just kill off the entire leadership, the brazeness of the whole thing. There's no pretense anymore of abiding by international law.

Instead, there's almost bragging that we won't be constrained by international law. This is some kind of political correctness to have rules of engagement, as Hegset suggests. and also the attacks on nuclear power plants, which could have fuel nuclear contamination. And also that the diplomacy itself seems like a fraud now. This has been two negotiations now, first in June and then back in, also in February, where we're told that they were close to a deal

and then immediately before a deal was reached and the Iranians had their guard down, the US launched a surprise attack. So what are the Russians going to expect now if they make a deal with Trump and then when they meet at the signing table, they all get droned? It's very strange,

especially given that you had this attack on Waldai in which it was assumed this would aim for the killing of Putin. This is another issue, suddenly they have to now consider to what extent Trump was actually involved in this assassination attempt. So there's a lot of things they have to reconsider. And even whatever Putin reconsider is one thing, but he's also struggling now because I think there's growing pressure within Moscow that they can't continue the same path, this gradual incrementalism, the war of attrition, that this is something dangerous, that they essentially should take a page out of

which is just the restore its retaliate it's deterrent because these days the Europeans the Americans don't seem to fear any Russian retaliation we saw this during the tonight actually this attacks on the drone attacks on the Russian port at the Baltic Sea this is in a more than thousand kilometers away from Ukraine and it seems as if the drones entered from the Baltic States so you just there's no covering it up anymore. It's very obvious now that these NATO countries are launching attacks on Russia from NATO territories and still Putin doesn't respond. You know, the logic is the Iranians wouldn't do this. They would stand up and reset red lines, which would be

upheld. And that's essentially what they should do as well. That's a very dangerous, it takes us in very dangerous direction. So no, so I think this, yeah, the Iran war will have a massive implication for for the Ukraine war as well. Where does the Ukraine war stand now? I mean are the Russians, is the Russian military any closer to achieving their military goals today than they were six months ago? Yes, they have this continuous advancement. Again, the advancement can be measured in two ways. In a war of attrition, it entails exhausting your adversary. So, degrading the Ukrainian military and we see that the problems of the ukraine military is growing day by day they have a more and more manpower shortage they're not in a position to replenish their troops they're having

more lack of access to air defense systems and and military hardware especially now this is worsened due to the iran war they're having more economic problems they're having more internal political uh problems and while this is happening the the russians are are also, as the situation gets worse, the Russians are also marching forward. So the situation in Saprushia region now becomes quite critical. If Arechava would fall and the Russians are now on the outskirts, they could march upon Saprishia city itself, and that would disconnect a very important part of the entire logistic systems

which they used to fight in Donbass. Has the special military operation lost popularity, among the Russian public? Or is that just so broad a question that it can't be answered? Well, it is, I guess it's difficult to answer. I think many people are exhausted. Again, this war has taken a toll. On the other hand, it's not, what do you do? Do you either keep the war as it is, or do you pack up and go home? Because that's not a possibility either. This is essentially what NATO has threatened, if Russia would relief, NATO would then follow after it, go into Ukraine. So there's no loud voices saying, well, the alternative to this war of attrition is to

essentially capitulate and go home. Rather, the main oppositions arguing, you know, we should put a quick end to this war. Look what the Americans did in Venezuela. They just went in, kidnapped the president. In Iran, they're just trying to exterminate the entire leadership. They're showing no regard for, you know, for. civilian population centers for nuclear safety nothing why you know that the argument you hear more and more the criticism of president Putin is that they shown too much restraint this is interpreted

as weakness and it drags the war on instead of getting a quick end so if this pressure mounts it's not unreasonable to expect that the the Russians would have to begin to embrace a much more aggressive strategy. Wow. And back to where we started, I assume that there is no chance that any European powers will aid the Americans and the Israelis in Iran. Well, it's hard to say. I mean, Chancellor Black Rock Mertz, he even tried to position himself as the leading supporter of Trump in this war on Iran, saying how wonderful it is, you know, they're fighting this war for us but even Mertz doesn't want to join in on it and i think this is

you know concern about the regional chaos but also that there's no clear path to victory here and it would make him even more unpopular keep in mind that the european leaders have barely any support at all and beyond that there's you know this growing legitimacy crisis as well so um and you know there's also economic reasons why not to join this that is Iran has a powerful retaliatory capabilities, not just military in which Europe falls within Iranian missile range, but there's also Iran's selective access to the Strait of Hormuz. So it's good, as you see, Spain, for example, which has opposed U.S. access to its basis, it's allowed now to transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

So at some point, the basic national interest has to be factored in. And you could also point out for many Europeans, they don't seem to, they don't forget that only a few weeks ago, you know, for Denmark and other troops, they were sending weapons to and explosive to Greenland. There was reportedly some plans to blow up the airfield there if an American invasion was coming. So a few weeks ago, they were preparing possibly to fight the United States as the US would invade European territory, and now they're supposed to enter a war, which is proving to be an unmitigated disaster, and which there's no off-ram to, or or any clear path to victory or any set objectives for that matter which would define victory.

So it's very difficult to get any of the public on board. So yeah, I guess this is what fuels the skepticism among most of the European leaders. Right. Great analysis, Professor Deeson, excellent analysis. Thank you very much for your time, my dear friend. We'll look forward to seeing you next week. Thank you, Judge. All of us great to see you. Thank you. Thank you. All the best. Coming up this afternoon at 1 o'clock, Matt Ho, at 2 o'clock, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, at 3 o'clock, Colonel Douglas McGregor.

Judge McIntyne for Judging Freedom.