Judging Freedom - Ray McGovern Iran vs. Israel: Who’s Really Worried?

Episode Date: January 19, 2026

Ray McGovern Iran vs. Israel: Who’s Really Worried?See 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 Monday, January 19th, 2006. Ray McGarrow Reverend will be with us in just a moment on Israel and Iran. Who's really worried? And what does the Kremlin think about Trump wanting Greenland? But first this. History tells us every market eventually falls. Currencies collapse. And look at where we are now. 38 trillion in national debt. Stocks at record highs defying gravity. So what happens next? Groceries, gas, housing, everything's going up and this dollar it buys less every day when the system breaks your stocks won't save you and your dollars won't either but one thing will gold i've set it on my show for years gold survives

collapse central bankers know this and billionaires know it that's why they're buying more is it too late to buy or is it just the right time call my friends at lear capital to find out ask Get the free information. There's no pressure, and that's why I buy my gold and silver from Lear. And right now, you can get up to $20,000 in bonus medals with a qualified purchase. Call 800, 511, 4620, or go to Learjudgeonap.com today. Ray McGovern, welcome here, my dear friend. Thank you, of course, as always, for joining us. before we get to Israel and Iran, do we know what the Kremlin's views are on Trump coveting Greenland? Well, amazingly, they seem to be very much in favor of it.

I mean, Judge, if the name of the game is to wreak havoc on NATO, the Russians have pretty much achieved this without lifting a finger. Trump has done it for them. Now, I was thinking along those lines, and yesterday I saw an R.C. Article that sort of suggested that, but now, this morning, the Mitya Piscoff, Putin's spokesperson, said precisely that. This would be a terrific achievement by the President of the United States, not only of national significance, but of historic significance if he pulls this off. not a word of, well, you know, we don't think this is a good idea or poor Europeans for having to decide on this. It was just to look, we understand this would be a feather in his cap. In other words, this is a sop to Trump's ego. And as I've said, countless times, for whatever reason.

And I think I know the reason. Putin is trying to gently treat Trump so that Trump doesn't go off. half-cocked and destroy Russia and the rest of the world in the process. I mean, this sounds simple, but I think that's at the core of this. Putin knows he's going to win in Ukraine, and now one of the side effects intended or unintended is that NATO is falling apart, and Greenland is the major catalyst this time. Here's Dimitri Peskov earlier today on this very topic. with these very lines that you've summarized, Ray, Chris number nine.

However, there are international experts who believe that if Trump resolves the issue of Greenland's annexation, he will undoubtedly go down in history, and not only in the history of the United States, but in world history as well. And I repeat once again, without discussing whether this is good or bad, it's hard to disagree with these experts. That's probably all that can be said on this topic. We'll go down in history. Of course, he recently, apparently told the prime minister of Norway, but without the Nobel Prize, he's no longer interested in peace. Judge, I hold no brief for Trump nor for Putin,

but there is such a thing as Real Politique. And what Putin is trying to do is keep his powder dry until he completely wins in Ukraine. and Trump will have to come around. And meanwhile, NATO is no more as a viable entity. It never was as a military entity over the last five years. And now it's shown to be, well, here are the Germans. What did they do? On Friday, they sent troops to Greenland.

How many? Fifteen. Fifteen men and women troops. Oh, when did they come back? Sunday. Oh, why? Well, the German Defense Ministry, They blamed it on the weather.

There was not good weather and drinking. So we withdrew our sizable contingent. It was really ridiculous. Obviously, it was symbolic, but the symbolism was absurd for the reasons you've just demonstrated. Not only absurd, but, you know, if you want to tweak Trump and it succeeded, that Trump immediately levels 10% more tariffs on those. eight countries now. What were they? Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, and Britain. Ten percent, okay? And if they don't shape up on June 1st, 25 percent,

25 percent more, or no, we don't know. It's 25 percent of the first of June. You know, it's just sort of crazy, but the Europeans are shown to be feckless and helpless, and they will, in my view, no doubt acquiesce in this seizure of part of NATO without a fight. They don't really have any option. That's one reason why Realpolitik Russians look on and say, well, okay, you got to borrow this guy. He's done it without a fight. And he'll go down in history as having enlarged the United States larger than the Louisiana purchase, for God's sake, and much larger than Alaska.

Here's Representative Mike Turner. And I'm no fan of his. He's the most pro, as far as I can tell, universal warrantless surveillance person in the United States Congress. But he's got a different view of Trump's presidency when it comes to Greenland. Chris, cut number four. There certainly is no authority that the president has to use military force to seize territory from a NATO country. And certainly this is problematic that the president has made this statement and has caused, you know, tension among the alliance. They're very concerned about Trump's response on this.

It's putting at risk. I think Trump's peace principles with respect to Gaza, with respect to Ukraine and Russia, his leadership among our allies, because he needs our allies for being a base for his ability to rally. And certainly, you know, one of his principles of trade. and his ability to help our economy. It's put at risk his EU negotiations. Yes. The American public, I think, are questioning. Yeah, well, you saw our poll.

He shared it with you. 70% of Americans disapprove of using funds to buy Greenland. 86% disapprove of him using military force to take it. How do you justify and explain his strategy when both our allies and Americans say no? I think people would prefer a focus on the economy instead of a focus on Greenland. Well, if Trump can acquire it without funds or without the use of military force, just by the force of personality or tariffs, of course, the tariffs thing is really up in the year.

The Supreme Court decision could come down any day as to whether he has the ability to impose these unilaterally. We'll see where it goes. President Putin made a very interesting statement. Actually, before we get to Putin, I want to talk to you. about Iran. You and Ray and I talked about this, excuse me, you're Ray. You and Larry and I talked about this on Friday at the Intelligence Community Roundtable. But how could the CIA and the Mossad have so bungled their efforts, pardon me, to reproduce the 1953 coup in Iran? Well, it's interesting you referred to 1953 for the same thing happened. The analysis

Division of Mossad, and the analysis division of CIA were no doubt cut out of what to expect if they try to do this airbrain scheme against Iran yet again. Now, we know there's a long tradition of this. When John Kennedy decided to okay the Bay of Pigs invasion, he knew that it'll probably not succeed. He said, we're not going to use U.S. forces to bail these people out. once they get on the beach. And then later, he found out because he put Arthur Schlesinger Jr. on the task.

He said, look, I spent two months, tell me what happened with this terrible intelligence. And the answer was, there was no intelligence from the analysts. It was all from the people that wanted to do this. Alan Dulles and all those guys that wanted to do this. And they had a stake, so they misled you, Mr. President. They misled you. And exactly a month, exactly a month, after John Kennedy was killed. President Truman wrote an up end, drop ed, an up ad that appeared in the

Washington Post just in one edition, right? And what it said is the cardinal fault of the CIA is to mislead the president into making very unwise decisions. His words, okay? Truman set the CIA up to give the president what he called untreated intelligence. In other words, not biased, not what the Pentagon or the State Department wants to say. And he's like, see, I worked in that vineyard for two-thirds of my career until it became corrupted, okay? But it was possible for us to do that. It was not possible during John Kennedy.

He, quote, reneged. He never made a promise to bail the people out on the Bay of Pigs. He told him he wouldn't do that. But they said, well, he reneged, okay? on Alan Dulles' desk after he died were coffees' name notes that said, when push comes to shove, the president will be unable to resist committing U.S. forces so as to make sure that the enterprise does not fail. The enterprise overthrow Castro.

He was a economy, of course, and we know what's best for the America. We'd have to talk to the analysts. Schlesinger told Kennedy, look, you have to revise the CIA. If you're going to do something like that, please make sure the analysts are involved. They weren't involved then. I don't think they're involved against you here. Well, tell me what you think happened then. Tell me what advice you think was given to President Trump about the CIA working with Mossad to foment chaos in the streets to take advantage of legitimate complaints about

the economy, much of which were caused by us, caused by us, but legitimate pain, and turned them into violence. Would John Ratcliffe have the director of the CIA, have advised the president to do it, knowing that the analytical team had not yet weighed in, just the operations people did? Do I have that right? The legislation setting up the CIA says that the direct. of the CIA shall perform such other functions and duties besides untainted intelligence, as the president shall from time to time direct. So if Trump makes it clear that Radcliffe, look, I want to obliterate his word, Iran, you think I can do it?

Ratcliffe goes to his operatives and says, you think we can do that? And the answer is always, of course we can. Of course we can, because these Iranian emigrees assure us that this is a piece of cake, just like the Iraqi emigres, assured us that there will be a cakewalk, right, going into Iraq. Is there nobody at Langley saying the emigreys are not trustworthy because they have a bias, they have a dream that they're going to come back at the power? Well, there were people at Langley that said that about the Iraqi, chaliby and all those guys. Right.

But they're cut out. They were not apple. They don't, well, actually it was worse still. They acquiesced, and that's the great sorrow for me. My former colleagues let themselves be used by Cheney and Bush to justify an unjustifiable war of aggression against Iraq. Same thing happens now with Iran. They don't really, if there are honest analysts left, and I suggest there really are, witness the fact. witnessed the fact that less than a year ago, Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon and hasn't been since 2003.

Okay. Oh, what happened to that? Well, somebody told Trump to add. I didn't know what she's talking about. So Trump said, I don't believe that. I don't know. So it's a real, I mean, it's a structural fault that, as I say, goes back to the creation of the CIA. If they're honest analysts, well, they're not given a say in these decisions.

And Tulsi Gabbard, by statute, has the right to review COVID action plans. You think they gave her that? No, they sent her to Hawaii to bathe in the ocean there. I mean, they made a fool of her. I don't know how she can keep her job with dignity. She was literally taking selfies of herself on the beach in Hawaii during the final stages. the hours preceding the military operation to abduct President Maduro? Yeah, Judge, I think she did that deliberately.

I mean, if you know that a hairbrain scheme is about to happen, one good way for you is to dissociate yourself from what's going on. And what better way to say, look, I was pretty far away from all this stuff that was going on. I was swimming in Hawaii. So I think that was deliberate. Now, whether Trump will come back and say, oh, my God. I was misled again, just like in Ukraine, now in Iran, Venezuela is good.

Maybe I ought to talk to Tulsi again. I think that may be the offer. That may be the wish father to the thought. Yeah, yeah. I hope you're right because, you know, you and I share the same view of her, a view well grounded and all the wonderful things she said and votes she cast when she was in the House of Representatives. I want to go to what also another matter that we talked about on Friday with Larry, and that is President Putin on international law. Let's play this clip and then you tell me what you think. Chris, cut number one.

80 years ago, our fathers and grandfathers, great-grandfathers, having won the Second World War, we're able to unite, find a balance of interests, and agree on the fundamental rules and principles of international relations and enshrine them in the UN Charter in all their totality, completeness and interconnection. The imperatives of this foundational document, such as equality, respect for sovereignty, non-interference and internal affairs, and the resolution of disputes through dialogue, are now in demand more than ever. This principle is enshrined in fundamental international legal documents. Disregard for this basic, vital principle has never led and will never lead to anything good. This was clearly demonstrated by the crisis around Ukraine, which became a direct consequence of many years of ignoring Russia's legitimate interests and a deliberate course toward creating

threats to our security, toward the advance of the NATO bloc to Russia's borders, contrary to the public promises given to us. I want to emphasize this. Contrary to the public promises given to us, I recall that Russia has repeatedly put forward initiatives to build a new, reliable and fair architecture of European and global security. Contrary to the public promise is given to us, we all know what he's talking about. Sure. Now, people see a big revelation. and this judge, I do not. This is what we in the trade called boilerplate.

Look at the scene. It's people, 32 people, ambassadors and others, giving their credentials to the president of Russia. He's going to emphasize, look, don't lie to us, okay? If you make a commitment, don't go back on it like the U.S.

did, like NATO did, way back when they promised not to enlarge it, don't do that anymore. Then he follows it up, you know. It doesn't And where you ended, he says it's precisely this kind of long-term security arrangement, a sustainable peace that reliably ensures the security of everyone that our country strives for. So to think that this is something new, it's not in my view. It just repeats what Putin has said many times in the past, and the occasion sort of demands a reminder that,

look, you know, we were deceived. He said that countless times in the past. were deceived by the US, NATO. Don't try that on us. Just remember you're representing your country. Don't do that to us. It will come to a no good end. Here's another clip you'll appreciate from the same speech, President Putin on January 15, Chris number two. I want to emphasize this, contrary to the public promises given to us. I recall that Russia has repeatedly put forward initiatives to build a new, reliable and fair architecture of European and global security. We proposed options and rational solutions that could suit everyone. In America, Europe, Asia,

throughout the world, we believe that it would be worth returning to their substantive discussion in order to fix the conditions under which a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine can be achieved, and the sooner the better. precisely toward a long-term and sustainable peace, reliably ensuring the security of everyone, that our country is striving. Not everywhere, including in Kiev and the capital supporting it, are they ready for this? But we hope that awareness of such a necessity will come sooner or later. Until this happens, Russia will continue to consistently pursue the goals it is set for itself. Thanks, Judge, for including that port, because that's the essential port.

You know, I've said countless times that Putin and his advisors place great priority on developing decent relationship with the United States. Now, it seems really, really strange that here drones fired from Ukraine target the, what the Russians call the state residence near Valdai, and Putin is still talking like this. Peskov, his spokesperson this morning, says, look, you know, we think Trump is probably going to go down on history of somebody really great. If he sees his Greenland, my God, you know,

the world is turned upside down, but the Russians are giving these soaps to Trump. Why? Because they like them? No. because he's unpredictable and he's got his fingers on the nuclear cause. They are extra cautious. They're going to humor him whether he comes around and helps good things happen in a negotiated settlement on Ukraine.

It doesn't really matter because the Russians have won that. The big thing is let's not have a nuclear war. We, that is the Russians, have built up our country for 25 years now after it was plundered economically by the Wall Street guys and the Harvard boys. We don't want to risk that. We're going to give this guy some very kid gloves treatment. And with the hope, who knows, maybe? Well, who's in Davos today with Trump? Oh, it's Whitkoff and Kushner are there.

Oh, and Zelensky's going to be there? Yeah, he's there too. Are they going to talk to him? Well, they talk to the Ukrainians over the weekend. Is there something brewing here? I don't know. But the Russians are trying to tamp this thing down. And to their credit, they're not going to be provoked by things.

Even things like Scott Ritter says are attributable to the United States technology, which enable these 91 Ukrainian drones to hit the state residence near Waldai. Wow. Last subject matter, do you think that Netanyahu will change his mind and encourage Trump to attack Iran? Well, you know, it's hard for me to predict what Netanyahu will do. I don't see him in such extremists here. I don't think he's so dangerously, endangered politically, that he will do that.

Of course, it all depends on Trump, and predicting Trump is a fool's errand. So if Netanyahu says, well, we're going to try this again, and Trump should say, well, but Starlink, we don't have that anymore. What are we going to do? And as you pointed out, I think before, not only with the merits of the thing in place, namely no more Starlink links with the agent profiteurs, but Niztinyahu himself said, well, Mr. President, hang on for a second. you know, somebody just told me what happened in April.

Oh, God, you know, they could just, they could obliterate us. So timeout, call a lot of the timeout, and that's where we are at the timeout period. God knows what will happen after the intermission. Here's Senator Graham, very unhappy with the Arab nations who joined Netanyahu asking Trump not to attack. Chris, number eight. Yeah, I'm not so sure they're very good. ally right now. If the media reports are true that the Arab countries intervened on behalf of Iran to stop decisive action that was promised, that if the Arab countries are okay with

Iran's Ayatollah staying in power, and they feel like the slaughter of people we've encouraged to go out into the streets is not necessary to stop, then they're not a very good ally. I'm going to reevaluate my entire opinion of the United States. Arab World Alliance. Wait a minute. Don't you think there's another way to remove the Ayatollah as you No, no, no. To the Arab world, I've tried to be very hopeful to build on the Abraham Accords.

But this idea of saying one thing behind closed doors and something else in public is coming to an end. If you did in fact intervene to stop this action, that means you really don't understand what America's interests are and your own interest. How can you ask President Trump to do that after he's encouraged people to go out in the streets, risk their own lives? That is such a narrow view and a distorted view and quite frankly a sick view of what to do. I don't want to be aligned with that. I would never vote for any kind of agreement that would bind us to any Arab country that actually did this.

Why anybody takes him seriously. Well, I think the Arab countries are shaking in their boots, Judge. I mean, my God, they've lost a friend in Lindsey Graham. You know, this is really a good example of how delusionary, how narcissistic Graham has been. And to the degree that, you know, he talks to Trump after they put it on the, the seventh green, and Trump has fed this kind of stuff, you know, may play a role. Now, if Lindsey Graham is not going to support that kind of, well, good riddance, we don't know, we don't need that kind of support, and neither do the Gulf states, of course.

The Gulf states have a huge, huge investment here. Look at that big, big U.S. basin in Qatar, for example. It's there because they want the U.S. in to defend them. And, you know, the Arabs are not going to listen to the likes of Lindsay Graham, except to deride him and say, oh, my God, I hope that Trump doesn't listen to him. Ray McGovern, thank you, my dear friend. Always a pleasure. And we'll look forward to seeing you at the end of the week with Larry for the roundtable, wrapping up what will happen in the next three or four days. Thank you, Ray.

All the best. Most welcome. Coming up at 1130, Larry Johnson, and at three this afternoon, Scott Ritter. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.