Judging Freedom - Ray McGovern: Intel and War in Iran.

Episode Date: March 24, 2025

Ray McGovern: Intel and War in Iran.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 is Monday, March 24th, 2025. Ray McGovern is here with us on the role of Intel in a war against Iran. But first this. Markets are on an all time high. Euphoria has set in. The economy seems unstoppable. But the last administration has buried us so deep in debt and deficits, it's going to

take a lot of digging to get us out of this hole. Are you prepared? Lear Capital specializes in helping people like me and you grow and protect our wealth with gold. Did you know that during Trump's last presidency, gold rose 54 percent to a record high? If that happens again, that puts gold at $4,200 to announce in his next term. Don't wait. Do what I did. Call Lear at 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgeknap.com for your free gold ownership kit and special

report $4,200 gold ahead. When you call, ask how you can also get up to $15,000 in bonus gold with a qualifying purchase call 800-511-4620 800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them the judge sent you Hi there, Ray. Welcome here my dear friend. I mean under the law if the president of the United States wants to use military force against another country, he must either get a declaration of war from Congress

or determine that a threat to the United States from that other country is so imminent that it would be imprudent to wait for Congress to debate and he's going to strike immediately. Question, what conceivable threat, if any, does Iran pose to the national security of the United States? Zero, unless the United States aids Israel in attacking Iran. It's that simple. I ask you the same question about Yemen. What conceivable threat to the United States national security does Yemen pose because

Trump spent a weekend, two weekends ago, bombing Yemen and killing civilians. We're going to get a firsthand report on that later today from our friend Pep Eskobar, who is there. What threat does Yemen pose? Yemen is located at a very strategic juncture there. Yemen poses a threat to Israel, to Israeli economy, because ships cannot go up the Red Sea if the Yemenis deter them, but poses no threat to the United States of America unless one considers that the US is bound at the hip to Israel. What threat does Israel pose to the peace and security of the countries of the Middle East?

Well, let's talk about nuclear. There's a very interesting three-part series on Israeli TV explaining exactly how they stole the technology from the United States to build a nuclear weapon for deterrence. So they're proud of that. They have a deterrent. Question is, why can't Iran have a deterrent? Deterrent works both ways. Having said that, that's logical.

Not so logical is to understand why Iran has resisted, has said we will not make a nuclear weapon. Now this has nothing to do with nuclear fission or nuclear refined uranium up to 90 percent, although they're approaching that. They need a weapon and they need a missile to put the weapon on and they have not been working on the weapon on and they have not been working on the weapon. That is a consistent conclusion, unanimous by US intelligence agencies in November 2007, expressed with high confidence, and I would say that it played a major role in preventing Bush and Cheney from waging a war with Iran on their way out, 2008.

And that's pretty much proved by Bush's own memoir, a couple of pages he must have written himself because he said, oh my God, this deprived me of military action against Iran because this is a quote, how could I possibly authorize a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities when the intelligence community says that the Iranians are not actively working on a nuclear weapon? Oh, damn it. We can't do it. So this has a history. Now, the history is clear today. All those years since 2007, the intelligence community has been saying, yeah, yeah, they got this fish, it's up to 90%. And people like Blinken have been saying, oh, they're about a week, two weeks away from a nuclear weapon.

Well, that's made up stuff because as far as I know, as actually Bill Burns, the CIA director on his way out, maybe to atone for his many sins. He said, yeah, it's still the same. They're not working on a nuclear weapon. Now, there's a fatwa against it. Now, I'm sure, what's a fatwa? That's a religious prohibition.

It's more powerful than an encyclical that we're all familiar with, okay? People obey that. Okay? with, okay? People obey that. Now, Judge, even during that cruel war where we were supporting Iraq against Iran and Iraqis were using chemical weapons, that fatwa was enforced. The Iranians were not using any kinds of WMD weapons of mass structure, especially not nuclear because they didn't have them and neither did Iraq as we finally found out after the whole intelligence community was prostituted at the feet of Vice President Cheney to say, oh yeah, they're working on a nuclear, yeah, the rock has a nuclear program, which they had on paper, but they had no real nuclear.

What is the intelligence community today under Tulsi Gabbard telling President Trump about Iran's nuclear capabilities? This is the acid test for Tulsi Gabbard. There used to be a thing called a national intelligence estimate. This is the supreme genre of intelligence analysis, and all of the communities were involved. I led two of those myself, okay? So I know what it's like. There were 16 agencies back in 2007. As I said, the decision

was unanimous. The decision was that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003. You can put together 2003 is when the US and the UK attacked Iraq and have not resumed working on a nuclear weapon. Again, I say a nuclear weapon, not on the uranium enrichment. The uranium enrichment has increased, but it's going to still take them, most people say months, some people say a year, to actually develop a nuclear weapon. And are we sure of that? Yeah, we're sure of that. Even Bill Burns said we could detect that within a week or two. So this is all, you know, it's very reminiscent of what happened to Iraq. This time I think it's very different because the Russians and we have a mutual incentive not

to destroy the burgeoning relationship, the détente that Trump and Putin are really committed to now. That I think is the supreme value in Russia's view. And then I got to let, you know, they're gonna make sure that Trump understands that if he follows Israel in a kind of, if he lets Israel start a war with Iran, and if the US comes in, then, you know, this is the end of the burgeoning relationship. They're gonna go finish off Ukraine. And, you know, these are high stakes.

Now, let me make a comparison. Back during Vietnam, when a summit was set up to concretize and sign the arms control agreements, the ABM treaty first and foremost, there was a big attack on Hanoi and Haiphong. And most of the smart people, the people above my level in Washington at the sixth, that will sabotage this summit. The Russians are going to tell Nixon and Kissinger, forget about it.

We have priority there with the international communist movement. Guess what? No. Their priority was to have a decent relationship with the US, the more so since China had developed already this decent relationship with this, the fact that Nixon was in China in January of the same year. So the Russians have their priorities. In this case, I think the Russians are really hell bent and determined to see if Trump is

serious about creating this new detente. And everything I hear from Wyckoff and others who seem to know which end is up, this is the priority now. And so my guess is that the Russians will lean hard, not only on the US, but also on Israel and the Iranians and say, look, this is going to be consequences for this. And besides, I have Chinese friends. So Chinese friends really don't like the notion of having to do without oil coming through the Gulf. As a matter of fact, the whole world will go into a deep depression if this happens. I think Trump

will finally wake up and say, well, I'm going to put America first. I can't do that and put Israel first. I can't do that and put Israel first also. I have a number of follow-up questions, but before we do, Chris, can you put up that picture of Prime Minister Netanyahu at the UN? The famous one with the bomb. Right, right. Can you post that, Chris? You'll be able to see how close they are to getting a nuclear weapon. Is that nonsense, Ray? Yeah, no, no, that's the uranium enrichment, okay? That's necessary to create a bomb.

But what I'm saying here is they're really good at uranium enrichment and they have it up to 90%, which is what's required for a bomb in some cases. And they may have enough for a couple of bombs, but they don't have the bomb, okay? They haven't worked on the nuclear weapon. And we would know that if they did. So the whole thing is pretty much a charade.

And as this Bulletin of American Scientists article just three days ago says, you know, this is the height of hypocrisy. The Israelis are advertising how clever they were and stealing the technology to build a nuclear weapon for deterrence, okay? And now they're bragging about it and they are in a nuclear weapon country and this Iran is not a nuclear weapon country, but you know the other thing is Iran has a deterrent that it never had before they're called hypersonic hypersonic missiles and they show that they could already reach Israel

they have attacked Israel airfields so this is sort of you know what all this are not looking at none of is not only fatwa, but the fact that US soldiers, US Navy ships there in the area are fair game if Iran decides that there's no way to prevent a US-Israeli attack. So there's a deterrent right there and nobody wants that, at least unless some crazies were working for Trump. So, well, that may be a good thing. Well, how do we, how does the United States know how close Iran is or isn't to the acquisition of an actual bomb. I mean, do we have agents on the ground in Tehran? We don't. The Israelis do. I say we don't. I just don't know that we have them there. Be unlikely.

But there are cameras all over the place, Judge. There are UN inspection regimes there that make it really, really difficult, virtually impossible, most people think, to not find out quickly, as Bill Burns, in a fit of honesty, admitted. Yeah, we'll find that right away. So when they ask a question, will they cheat? Well, that's really important, because that's doverei, prove it I trust but verify. Yes, if they cheat, we'll know in a week and a half or so. So I want you to listen to one of Mike waltz's rants. Very angry man. But here he is yesterday on one of the talk shows. Tell me what you think cut number nine, Chris. Full dismantlement. Iran has to give up its program in a way that the entire world can see. And this is, look, as President Trump has said, this is coming to a head. All options are on the table.

And it is time for Iran to walk away completely from its desire to have a nuclear weapon. And they will not and cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapons program. Why is it that Israel has one, but for deterrence, as you said earlier? If Israel has a deterrence, why can't Iran? Well that's a sensible question, Trump, but you won't find that reflected in the New York Times or any major media. The bugaboo, of course, is Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Now, I don't know if Mike Walz knows this. Hopefully someone will tell him. But the intelligence community, as far as I know, and the most recent issuance a

couple of months ago, you brought us not working on a nuclear weapon. So this kind of a Trumpian village here, it's kind of pushing at an open door, you know? Okay, don't get a nuclear weapon. And if they want to make up the pretext for war as they did with respect to Iraq it all depends on my former colleague whether this time they will fold and say okay for my promotion purposes or my bonus I'll say that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon and reversing what we've said since 2007 that could happen. We'll see if Tulsi Gabbard is able to make that not happen. How can the same mentality that says he wants the Nobel Peace Prize, that says he wants a grand reset with Russia and probably China, Brazil, and India as well,

that is very impatient to end the war in Ukraine possibly be considering, I speak of the president of course, possibly be considering bombing Iran. Does he really think the Kremlin would just sit back and watch and do nothing? Well, I hope now that Fiona Hill has been deprived of her security clearances

as have all my grandchildren. I hope that the people who don't know anything about this kind of stuff will not be in the mix this time. So he's blustering, okay? I mean, if we're not used to Trump's bluster until he faces reality, we haven't learned anything from the way he operates. So that's my take on this. Trump is pretty much in charge. And what Mike Wallace may say, or what Kellogg might say, or what others subordinate to Trump might say, Rubio, for example, doesn't matter, doesn't amount to a hilla beans, okay, it's what Trump says. What Trump has said through a spokesman is that there's a renewed trust between him and President Trump. That's big. What he says is through his spokesman Peskov, is that they're both very, very interested, they're determined to create a new relationship between the two countries.

In my view, and of course I'm a Russian expert, so I have a different view from others, that is what's going to govern this thing. And after the bluster is over, and after hopefully Tulsi Gabbard six tour guns and said do an honest estimate on where Iran is and developing a nuclear weapon unless unless they all fold uh Trump if they all fold a judge then uh we'll have a war but I don't think they will I think this is mostly bluster. And of course, Trump is not known for not blustering. Whoa, there you go. Yeah, here's the dangerous part. Including Tulsi Gabbard. Trump is surrounded by arch person, Vance, Hegseth, Rubio, Walsh, that character, Sebastian Gorka, and even regrettably, Tulsi Gabbard.

Might they be motivated by this desire to please the extreme elements and Prime Minister Netanyahu's ruling coalition as opposed to doing the right thing in their advising Trump. Well, this is big, Judge. This is war. This is a war that we could not possibly win. And, you know, unless the Pentagon has really gone out to lunch, they and Tulsi, if she has the guts that I thought she had in the beginning, they'll stick to their guns and advise Trump, well, you know, you've scared them to death, but they're not going to relent. And besides Mr. Trump, you know, Bush and Cheney faced this exact same situation. And we told them that Iran was not working on a nuclear weapon, and that's still the

case. So Mr. Trump, you can make the war if you want but you're gonna lose and you'll be doing it on the same false pretenses that Bush and Cheney did on Iraq do you foresee American troops on the ground or just American air power well that's just crazy some people are talking about the U.S. invading Iran. Oh, good Lord. Iran's got what? 85 million people. Iran is not Iraq. Iran is not Syria. And besides, Iran doesn't want any part of this crap, okay? So, you know, the Iranians have suffered under these sanctions. The Russians are helping them, so are the Chinese.

And if I didn't mention the Chinese already, that also is left out of the equation. The Chinese depend heavily on Persian Gulf oil for the economy. This would be the end of, this would be a disruption that would cause a worldwide a disruption that would cause a worldwide fracas and chaos that we haven't seen since since the interdiction of oil through the Persian Gulf way back in the 70s, I suppose. Do you suppose that the intelligence community under Tulsi Gabbard is more intellectually honest in the information that it gets to the President, or do you suppose it's the same old same old? We'll tell him what we think he wants to hear. I'm not talking about the men and women in the field, I'm talking about management who decides what information makes

its way to the Oval Office. We're talking about the the Analysis Division now. Right. And there there are two signs. One is that Danny Davis, an excellent, excellent intelligence and army armor specialist, was denied the place as Gabbard's deputy. Okay. He knows which which side is up. And he spoke out coherently and honestly about the threat that Israel poses to our position in the world, particularly in the Middle East. So he was denied. The lobby came in and said, no, you can't. We hear that Danny Davis is under consideration. The answer is no. And what happened? It was no. So that's one indication that she's going to have a real tough job. She's going to have to have extraordinary guts, but she has the record.

She has what happened in Iraq. She can tell the president, look, same fall pretenses and the same loss. Now on the other side of things, let's see, what's it going to say? Well, she has shown some guts, and let's see, there's a, yeah, there's some hope that it'll come through this sensible approach. Wyckoff, of course, is very transactional. I think Wyckoff, if no one else, could get to the intelligence community. Did you really think they're working on a nuclear weapon and you know I I also think the other thought I had just now is look this happened before when Israel and the US were going to attack Iran together and they did It was last year. What happened? There was a CIA officer, part analyst officer in Afghanistan

who saw what was going to happen. And what he did apparently, I don't know this for sure, he released the plans, he released the results of the satellite photography. He said, well, it's just going down just in three days. That cancel, that cancel, that strike. It made the Iranians more attentive to how they could prevent it. And the strike happened later, but it was much less successful. I think there may be some honest whistleblowers still left in the intelligence community who realize the stakes here, don't want the Americans to get in another war, which they cannot win. Okay, it's a biggie. Okay. And I think there is a real risk for the administration that somebody honest will come out with these papers. It's really easy to do. It's a big sacrifice

because they're almost surely going to get you as they've got this other fellow. But I hope that the spring hope springs eternal, that there's enough honesty in the trenches and that Tulsi Gabbard will be so afraid of that honesty in the trenches that she'll feel compelled to tell the right story to Trump. And so Trump has blustered before. He doesn't phase him at all to back off and say, oh, well, I didn't really mean we're going to distract him. Hey, Mike Walsh and we'll be, for God's sake, tone it down now. So this is my view.

Trump is in charge. His priorities are Russia. He doesn't want to get into a new war. They can't win. If there's a modicum of sensibility, and I think we can still count on a modicum of it, with the intelligence community, they will say, hey, we don't want to get involved in this again. We don't want to justify, in quotes, another war, this time three times as bad as Iraq, because Iran is three times as big and three times as powerful. Thank you, Ray McGovern. A pleasure, my dear friend.

Look forward to seeing you at the end of the week with that youngster, Larry Johnson. Thanks, Judge. All the best. Have a good week. Thanks, Judge. All the best. Have a good week. Yours as well. Before I mention Larry Johnson, coming up at 1130 today at 3 o'clock today, Scott Ritter at 4 o'clock today, live from Yemen, Pepe Escobar.

Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. MUSIC