Judging Freedom - Ray McGovern: How Close is the US to War With Iran?

Episode Date: October 14, 2024

Ray McGovern: How Close is the US to War With Iran?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, October 14th, 2024. Ray McGovern will be here with us in just a moment on how close is the United States to war with Iran. But first this. A divisive presidential election is upon us and the winner is gold. Let me tell you what I mean. Since 2016, our national debt has grown a staggering 70% and gold has increased by 60%. Do you own gold? I do. I bought my gold in February 2023 and it has risen 33%. You've heard me talk about Lear Capital, the company I trust.

Let me tell you why. Recently, Kevin DeMeritt, who is the founder and CEO of Lear, assisted the FBI in discovering a nationwide gold theft ring. And because of Kevin's good work, the FBI caught these people before they could steal anymore. That's why I have been saying the people at Lear are good people. They believe in America. They believe in their product and they're honest to the core. So take action right now, my friends. Call 800-511-4620 or go to LearJudgenap.com. Protect your savings and retirement before it's too late. 800-511-4620, LearJudgenap.com. Remember, hope is not a strategy, but gold is.

Ray McGovern, welcome here, my dear friend. Thanks, Judge. I want to talk to you about the latest developments behind the scenes between Russia and Iran and the likelihood of the United States attacking Iran and Russia response. But before we get to that, the breaking news is that last night, the IDF revealed that as a result of a drone strike on a military base, at least four IDF soldiers were killed and 68 were wounded. Now, these are relatively small numbers compared to the numbers of people that the IDF has slaughtered in Gaza. But how do numbers like this, there are the pictures of the four that were acknowledged killed. Alistair says the true number is larger. They're all 19 years old. How do 19-year-old boys being killed and 68 of their colleagues being injured, how does that resonate with the Israeli public? Well, the Israeli public will be even more energized to finish them off.

That is, finish all the Palestinians off and finish the people that they see as threatening them in southern Lebanon. The point about this airstrike and its results is that that was south of Haifa, sort of at a military base, mind you. But we knew yesterday that there were many casualties, and I'm glad to hear, or not so glad from the Israeli point of view, but to hear that there were more than four killed, 60, 68. Those figures are severely wounded. We'll see what the final tally is. But, you know, this is not going or the efforts by the U.S. and by Russia to prevent further escalation. Perhaps we can get into that a bit later. Does the IDF, does any military routinely reveal how many of its people have been killed and injured? Not anybody, especially the IDF. But, you know, this was south of Haifa.

It's well known that this was a military base and those people were killed. They took a day to publish these photos, but those photos are now available and people can mourn them and can say, wow, now we have to really hit out against Hezbollah. And, of course, that's what Netanyahu wants to do. The problem is he's got unifil forces between him and the rest of Hezbollah. He's got all kinds of major political problems. I don't know if the IDF, if the Israeli Defense Forces want to risk being openly called

war criminals if they kill UN peacekeeping people in the southern part of Lebanon. Has the IDF attacked any UN peacekeepers? Well, there have been three who have been injured. Now, the Irish faced them down, as we talked about last time. No surprise, Ray. They did kill two Indonesians. And let's see, there was one other that was injured, there were two that were on a tower and that the tower was hit by a sharpshooter. The Israeli commanding general in Ireland commented that that couldn't happen without a deliberate, a very focused shot. They were injured, I don't know how badly, and those were also peacekeeping troops. I would mention that Joe Lauria has a piece in Consortium News today, which goes into the specifics of what UN peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, UNIFIL, UN interim force in Lebanon, what those troops who are there under security council mandate, what they're permitted to do, and one of the things they're permitted to do is shoot back. So where does that leave us? Well, will Gutierrez cave before Netanyahu's order,

get out of southern Lebanon, or will he leave them there? And if he leaves them there, will Netanyahu start killing UNIFIL forces? If he does that, then those are war crimes, pure and simple. I have a meager hope that the IDF, its leaders would say, you know, that we want to really, we really want to shoot up the UN peacekeeping forces that we really haven't shot up very much for the last 20 years? I don't know. So there's a chance that even Netanyahu and his rightist leaders would not be able to force the IDF to go in and shoot up UNFORCES. Now, that, of course, depends on whether Gutierrez stays tight here and says, well, no, we're not going to withdraw them like you ask us to or demand us to and see what happens.

This could be really, really crucial over the next day or so. Netanyahu yesterday, Sunday, October 13, making a public appeal to the Secretary General of the United Nations and also making some claims about the manner in which the IDF operates. Please take a listen to this, Ray, and tell me if you think it's credible. Cut number one. I would like to appeal directly to the UN Secretary General. It's time for you to remove UNIFIL from Hezbollah's strongholds and from the fighting areas. The IDF has repeatedly asked for this and has been met with repeated refusals, all aimed at providing a human shield to Hezbollah terrorists. Your refusal to evacuate the UNIFIL soldiers makes them hostages of Hezbollah.

This endangers both of them and the lives of our soldiers. We regret the injury to the UNIFIL soldiers, and we are doing everything in our power to prevent this injury. But the simple and obvious way to ensure this is simply to get them out of the danger zone. Mr. Secretary General, get the UNIFIL forces out of harm's way. It should be done right now, immediately. We are doing everything in our power to prevent this injury. I guess there was injury to some UNIFIL soldiers. He cannot legally attack UN forces. Israel is a member of the UN.

Legally? Schmeagol-y. Come on, Judge. Legally doesn't mean anything to Netanyahu. Again, it's probably a forlorn hope. But this would be manifestly war crimes, attacking, wounding, killing UNIFIL troops there. So the die is cast. Gutierrez has to decide whether he's going to bow to Netanyahu or he's going to hang tight. And I don't know what she'll do, but either way, if he does the former, if he bows, well, then that's the end of any credibility for UN peacekeeping forces, pure and simple. It's funny, when I asked you if Netanyahu can do this legally, one of the people that writes to us regularly during the show said, boy, the judge sure can be funny

sometimes. I, of course, was attempting to be serious, but to underscore the point. Switching gears, Russian President Putin and Iranian President Pazeshkin had a surprise public ostentatious meeting over the weekend. We're going to run two clips and then I'll ask you what was going on behind the scenes. First, President Putin greeting President Pozeshkin and then President Pozeshkin saying why they're there. Chris, cuts number two and three. I'm very glad, dear Mr. President, that there is an opportunity to meet you personally and discuss our current issues. Relations with Iran are a priority for us, and they are developing

very successfully. We have many opportunities now. We should help each other in many areas. Our viewpoints and positions in the world are much closer to each other than to those of others. God willing, we will take part in the BRICS summit and will do everything to sign agreements that will allow beneficial mutual cooperation. Did they sign a mutual defense pact? Is that the reason they were together or were they there for some other reason? Well, one has to be careful with the nomenclature here.

They're calling it a strategic agreement. It's tantamount to a mutual defense pact. It's been signed. It was blessed September 18th. It's all ready to go in draft. So why the delay? That's the conundrum here. And I have some pretty good information from people who watch this much more closely than I. And one is an Indian diplomat, former diplomat, Badr Rakhumar, who has a major report today. And he's talking about, you know, why this sudden meeting? Why did Pazeshkian have to go to talk to Putin on the fringes of this lesser meeting when they're meeting in just one week for the start of the BRICS meeting on September 22nd. And he says, well, you know, Putin has approved the draft agreement. What's holding it back?

And I looked at Iranian media and Pesachian has said, quote, I hope we will finalize the agreement during BRICS, end quote. He hopes. Well, everyone was considering that a done deal. So why the foot dragging on Moscow's part? Well, I can interpret that simply as Moscow doesn't want to encourage Iran to get more deeply involved with Israel once Israel counterattacks, okay? It was October 1st that Iran did that masterful big attack, killing, well, not killing any people,

but destroying some of the military bases there in Israel. So that's October 1st. Now, we've been on tenterhooks since Yom Kippur is over. Now, what are the Israelis going to do now? Well, what the Russians are trying to do is say, look, whatever the Israelis do, don't go all half-cocked. And we're going to defer deciding this thing, maybe at bricks, or maybe even later. Last thing I'll just mention that after all this went down, after the meeting on the 11th between Pesachian and Putin, Putin held no press conferences, he usually does, and a day or two

later, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Ryabkov, said this in public, we are closely and anxiously following the events in the Israel-Iran standoff, and the risk of a large-scale conflict is indeed high. The tendency to escalate to a full-scale conflict is a real danger. We call on all parties to exercise restraint. We are in intensive dialogue with the countries of the region. And once again, a major war can be avoided, but everyone must show restraint, end quote. So what I interpret this as meaning is that the Russians are doing their hardest, their damn most earnest to say, look, Iran, yeah, we have this thing, but we don't want you to embarrass us by getting involved in a full-scale war where we'll have to say, well has less influence on Netanyahu, comparatively speaking. Whether he can constrain Netanyahu is another question. I find some hope in the fact that he's been able to, or rather the U.S. military have been able to, since October 2nd, the day after the wide-scale Iranian attacks, but how much longer Biden or Blinken, probably not Blinken, but more important, the Defense Secretary Austin,

talking to Israeli counterparts. I think that's in play here. We don't know what Israel is saying to Austin. We probably don't know what Moscow is saying to Austin. But the Pentagon is the key player here. The Russians are trying to tamp things down. I think the Pentagon is too. Whether they can overrule Biden and Blinken and not is another question. What is the Kremlin's view of Netanyahu's bellicosity? Well, the Kremlin has taken all wraps off on criticizing Israel.

It used to be rather discreet with the hope that they could still have some influence in Tel Aviv. No more. They're criticizing Israel for exactly what Israel is doing, war crimes. And again, now, if Israel continues to take this next step and actually hit out against UNIFIL in southern Lebanon, well, those are war crimes, pure and simple, and we'll have to see how that plays out the next day or two. Do we have any indication of how the EU or NATO views Netanyahu's bellicosity? I have to say that they're not real players here. NATO is the United States, is the collective Joe Biden, if you will, the people who are making the decisions in the U.S.

The EU is immaterial here. They will all take the lead from the United States. And so the die is really cast here. With three weeks left before the election. I fear that Netanyahu will be able to persuade his associates. Look, this is the time. This is our only opportunity. A three week window. Let's start a major war. And Biden will have to come in on our side.

Otherwise, he'll fear losing the election. Well, will Russia allow the United States to attack, not defend from, but attack Iran like John Bolton and Lindsey Graham want, unchecked? Or will Russia do something in response to such an attack? Bolton, as we know, and as viewers of this show know, has encouraged President Biden to attack Iran's nuclear capability, whatever it is. Graham, as viewers of this show know, has advised, well, Graham's advised the president to assassinate Putin. He's also advised the president to attack Iran's oil refineries. In my view, and I suspect in yours, neither of those is likely to happen. If they did, they'd be catastrophic.

But if the U.S. does attack Iran, what will Putin do? You mean if Israel does attack Iran, what will Putin do? You mean if Israel does attack Iran? If the US with Israel attacks Iran, as Bibi ardently wants, as Bolton and Graham want. Yeah. Judge, I think I can say with some confidence that's not going to happen, okay? There's great resistance on the part of the Pentagon and there are logistical problems. If the Pentagon does not allow refueling of Israeli jet bombers, the Israelis can't use their sophisticated F-35s and so forth. There are other logistical problems. It's a long way to those nuclear sites and even those gas fields. They have to overfly countries that will not give them overflight

permission. And they're scattered. Iran is an immense, a very large, you look at the map, it's a very large country. And they very artfully dispersed, all their nuclear facilities in various places. So I'm sure that the Pentagon is weighing in now with collective Biden and saying, look, if we encourage the Israelis to get involved in a major war, if despite your urgings, Mr. President, they go after the nuclear facilities and or the gas facilities there. You know, we don't want that because everyone would expect, including the Israelis, for us to jump in full bore. And Netanyahu is counting on that. Why? Well, because there's only three weeks left before the election, Mr. President. And they hate, Netanyahu thinks that you're really kind of mousetrapped, that you would be forced to come in full bore to help Israel in a military sense. No one wants that in the Pentagon. No one really wants that in the IDF of Israel.

So will Biden, will Biden heed the advice of his military advisors as he did one month ago on Ukraine when Blinken and others were saying, ah, we're going to have to authorize these longer range strikes into Russia proper? The Pentagon said, no, no, no, we're not going to do that, okay? So Biden backed down reluctantly. He was surly. He was just really saddened when he met with Stammer, the head of the Prime Minister of Britain, to give him the bad news. Put away your target lists there. We're not going to do that, okay? So will they prevail this time? I think there's been huge influence between October 2nd, the day after the Iranian strikes, and now a huge influence exerted by the Pentagon. After all, the bottom line is the Pentagon is not ready to get involved in a war in West Asia, nor in Ukraine.

And my God, look what the Chinese are doing against Taiwan just over the last couple of days, encircling it with nine Coast Guard operations and going through the Taiwan Straits, all as a demonstration that, look, U.S., not only are we defending our position on Taiwan on its merits, but do you really want to take on three wars at the same time? This is also big, Judge. I always add that China is full bore in there with Russia, and if there's trouble in West Asia, well, China has its own reasons to go in big time

because they depend so heavily on Persian Gulf oil. But also they know that they're next. They're after Russia in the sights of the US neocons. So we have a three-front situation once again, demonstrated just this past weekend by very intrusive Chinese Coast Guard vessels going through the straits and going all around Taiwan. Let me just stop you because I want to get back to Israel, Ray. So the United States, we're going to put up a photo of this, is making available terminal high altitude defense area battery, commonly called by its acronym THAAD, T-H-A-A-D, to Israel. With THAAD come approximately 100 United States military troops? Are they a tripwire? They're going to

be in Israel operating that thing. Judge, there are so many tripwires on U.S. bases scattered throughout the Middle East. We don't need another one. If the THAAD gets there anytime soon, they may play a role. But, you know, Israeli defenses, the Iron Dome and all these other things have shown themselves incapable of handling hypersonic missiles, which Iran has. So this is a gesture. OK, now, my hope is that Biden said to the Israelis, look, okay, we don't want you to start a major war. And so, hey, why don't we give you some fads? That will help, okay? So there might be sort of like a quid pro quo.

That's an optimistic view of this thing, assured by a few others. What happens if an Iranian missile attacking a THAAD kills a couple of dozen American soldiers? That's already happened in Iraq, where we have 2,000 folks. In Syria, we've had another 1,000 folks or so. In other words, that's part of the calculus. I don't think that would require a U.S. response of great escalation, but you can be sure that Blinken and Sullivan and others would argue for that. I would count on the U.S. military to put the brakes on that. Right. All right. Now tell me what happened in China. Has the United States done or said anything publicly to the Chinese government about surrounding Taiwan with Coast Guard cutters? Not yet. But of course, the Taiwanese themselves have pretty much provoked

this by saying everything short of we want independence, we want independence, and we're going to be independent. Of course, that's a no-no. And most Taiwanese politicians have pretty much avoided saying that in the past, but they've been saying it over the last week. This is a Chinese demonstration to say, look, that's a no-no. And besides, for all who look on the global situation here, we could cause lots of trouble for the U.S. You know, meanwhile, we have Trump saying that it is inevitable. The Chinese are going to take over Taiwan. They're going to attack Taiwan, so we got to be prepared.

Well, you know, there's no indication that China has in its mind to attack Taiwan. They're much more patient. Taiwan will inevitably become part of China, as was agreed 53 years ago, okay? And this whole business about Taiwan has been blown up out of proportion, but it's important for the Chinese to assert what they see as their rights here, not only around Taiwan, but in the South China Sea, where they continue to have dustups with Filipino ships and even now with Vietnamese ships who claim islands that the Chinese really claim as their own. When you mentioned 51 years ago, you were referencing a federal statute which recognizes just one China and Taiwan as a part of it. I guess the former president and his advisors have forgotten about that. Well, they were too young. They were in grammar school, the advisors, and the president, well, he doesn't get reminded of these. Now, Chas Freeman, one of your guests, was not only instrumental, for God's sake,

he pretty much crafted that incredible statement on China, which avoided the whole issue and let us live in peace and prosperity with China for the last 50 plus years. So, you know, Chas is still around. Does anyone consult with him? No. I asked John Mearsheimer, anybody consult with you from the administration? He says never, never in all my years as a professor of international relations. So it's a very inbred group. That's part of the problem.

Well, the neocons only talk to other neocons. If we've learned anything, if there's any truism in all of this, it's that, right, Ray? Well, it's true. And one would think that the denouement has come now. I mean, look, look all the trouble they've gotten us into. And during these last three weeks, what what could be an October surprise? How are they going to how are you going to rescue themselves? Are they going to start a major war so that the current administration can seem very powerful and at war? And how are you going to vote against them? I don't know, but I wouldn't put it past them. Wow. Well, they don't have much time

left. Ray McGovern, it's always a pleasure. Thank you, my dear man. We'll see you at the end of the week with Larry Johnson. Most welcome, Judge. Of course. All the best. And coming up later today at 11 o'clock, Larry Johnson. At four o'clock this afternoon, Scott Ritter. At five o'clock this afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.