Judging Freedom - Scot Ritter : Is Netanyahu Calling the Shots?

Episode Date: February 11, 2026

Scot Ritter : Is Netanyahu Calling the Shots?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 Wednesday, January, excuse me, February 11, 26, Scott Ritter joins us now. Scott, before I talk to you about your views of what President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu are probably discussing even as we speak, do you have an opinion or an understanding of whether the Kremlin has soured on its view of the credibility of the Trump administration? You know, Vladimir Putin once said that, you know, as president, he doesn't have any friends. So, you know, your question, souring implies at one point in time, Putin thought there was sweetness.

Putin is the leader of Russia. And he is a very professional leader of Russia, which means he takes Russia's best interests into account in everything he does. So when there's a diplomatic opportunity that, you know, Russia could take advantage. And remember, Vladimir Putin has always sought to avoid confrontation, to avoid conflict. And, you know, he has proven time and time again, even once the decision was made to enter this special military operation, that he was looking for a viable off-ramp, not one that allows Ukraine and NATO to retain. the capabilities and posture that prompted Russian intervention to begin with, but one that recognizes the legitimate spheres of interest and influence of all parties involved, including Ukraine. So, you know, I believe that, you know, he has kept the door open.

When you do diplomacy, you put on your best face and you, you know, you put on a posture of a reception. But I do believe, you know, listening to Labrov speak about Sergei Labrov, the foreign minister whom you've met and interviewed, speak about Alaska, the bitterness in his voice. And Labrov is somebody who, you know, disguises his emotions. He's a very professional experienced diplomat, but the bitterness in his voice. When he talked about the fact that Vladimir Putin went to Alaska, sat down with Donald Trump. and made concessions, painful concessions, in an effort to bring about and into this war. Now, the specifics of the concessions made aren't known, but I think it's fair to say that they

probably involved the freezing of the front line in Keroson and Zaporizia in exchange for the Dombas being turned over to Russia in totality. And this would have been a very difficult concession for Putin to make because constitutionally, it's problematic. He would have to go back and face a Duma and a federal counsel that would not be happy with him, you know, making a decision that it was constitutionally, you know, in question. Is Zaporizian Kerson are, after all, constitutionally part of Russia in their totality? So he made these concessions under the belief that the United States was serious about negotiations and then to listen to the disdain in Labrude's voice as he talks about how

Trump went back to Washington, D.C., and immediately received the gang of seven from Europe and began renegotiating the agreement that had already been reached. I think the Russians right now recognize the reality that the United States is not an honest and trustworthy negotiating partner, not a serious negotiating partner. And then we have to compound this by bringing up that which the Russians should be bringing up more, but again, because of their diplomacy, they don't. December 29th in the attempted assassination of Vladimir Putin by 91 Ukrainian drones that were sent to their target, the residence of the president, by the CIA's intelligence, with the knowledge of the President of the United States. I think the Russians are waking up,

not only that the United States does not negotiate in good faith, but that the posture of the United States is one that is grounded in policies that are about bringing down the regime of Vladimir Putin. That's what we call it the regime. We don't talk about the legitimate government of Russia. It's the regime of Vladimir Putin, bringing it down and replacing it with one that would be more compliant to the United States. And I think the Russians are finally waking up to the fact that this is the reality. Look at new start. I mean, it expired, but the fact of the matter is, the United States is not a trustworthy, negotiate. How could Russia even begin to entertain arms control agreements with a nation that is seeking to strategically defeat Russia

and to use arms control agreements as a vehicle to gain strategic superiority or supremacy? This treaty was fundamentally flawed. Donald Trump is correct on that, but it's flawed because of the lies told by the United States. As we speak, Judge, as we speak, the United States is in the process of bringing back into active service up to 40 B-52 bombers that were supposed to have been decommissioned as nuclear delivery weapons systems. The Russians said at the time, hey, this is fake. If you guys are telling us that these are decommissioned, you can bring them back. And we said, no, no, no, this is right. We're bringing them back because we lied.

And we're doing the same with up to 24 launch tubes on Trident submarines, launch tubes that were supposed to be permanently decommissioned as part of the treaty. we're now bringing back. We lie on everything we do, and I think the Russians are waking up to that reality. I'm going to play a clip from Sergei Lavrov. It's a restrained anger, but it's a profound understanding, I think, of the American government. It may be from the same talk to which you referred a few minutes ago. The question I'm going to ask you after we watch this together is, is he speaking for President Putin or just for himself? of course number two. President Putin has repeatedly said no, we are not refusing to use the dollar. Under Biden, the U.S. has done everything to turn the dollar into a weapon against those who are out of favor. And I would like to point out and emphasize that the U.S. administration,

notwithstanding the various public statements we have heard regarding the urgent necessity of bringing a conclusion to the war in Ukraine, that was originally unleashed during the Biden administration. We need to come to an agreement, remove it from the agenda, and then clear, bright prospects for mutually beneficial Russian-American investment and other cooperation will open up. But all the laws that Biden passed to punish Russia after the start of the special military operation are not being challenged by the Trump administration.

For example, in April, the state of emergency law was extended. The core of which is the punishment of Russia, the imposition of sanctions against Russia, including the freezing of our gold and foreign currency reserves, this is explicitly stated as being due to Russia's hostile behavior in foreign policy. And as examples, interference in United States elections is cited the very thing President Trump categorically opposes on a daily basis and rejects all of it. and violations of international law, human rights. There's no end to the list.

This is all pure Bidenism, which Trump and his team reject outright, but nevertheless, they calmly extended it. The law of the sanctions against Russia continue to be in effect. I think he's 100% correct. Is he speaking for himself or for President Putin or both? Well, first of well, Sergei Labrov is the foreign minister of the Russian Federation, so he doesn't speak for himself. When he speaks, he speaks for the Russian Federation, which means that his words must be consistent with the policies of the president of Russia.

There's no light and there's no gap between what Sergei Lavrov is saying and what the president of Russia likewise believes. And indeed, if you've been following the Russian president like I have, these are the same words. The Russian president has said the same things over and over again, you know, a sentence here, a sentence there, a sentence here. is done here is bring them all together in one coherent, you know, statement of fact of reality that, you know, I would just, again, because he's a diplomat, he's, you know, he is much more cautious in his words. The Trump administration, man for man, with the possible exception of Tulsi Gabbard and J.D. Vance, and maybe RFK Jr. They are the Biden administration in terms of Russian policy.

These are Russophobes. These are people who hate Russia. These are people who have been actively working during the Biden administration to bring down the government of Vladimir Putin. Remember, Marco Rubio, our current Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, dual-hatted, constitutionally questionable. He, as a senator, sought to bring down Russia. He was never a friend of Russia.

never want to promote good relations. Scott Besant has never been promoting good Besson relations. He is talking about bringing the Russian economy to its knees. We can go down the line. There is not anybody on the Trump administration that's actively today articulating the necessity to break free of the policies of the Biden administration. The Trump administration's policies as they currently exist in terms of, you know, cognitive, written statements are the Biden administration's policies. Donald Trump, as the president, with some executive leeway, has said this, said that. But the bottom line, what we are doing today is the same thing we were doing under the Biden administration, providing intelligence,

providing the ability to strike deep. We've gone even worse. Trump has authorized the CIA to use Ukrainian drones to assassinate the president of Russia, something the Biden administration never tried to do. So, you know, I would just remind Sergei Lavrov, who I respect deeply, that there's nobody in the Trump administration, even the president, that has tried to create distance between, you know, the Biden administration's policies and what's going on today in the Trump administration. The Trump administration continues to seek the strategic defeat of Russia. They continue to seek the downfall of the presidency of Vladimir Putin. Wow. And Trump's disapproval rating. Disapproval rating is 56%. I don't know that it's ever been that way since the depths of Watergate with respect to Richard Nixon's switching gears. As we speak, what do you expect Prime Minister Netanyahu and his colleagues are telling President Trump?

Well, first of all, we need to understand that there is no, again, distance between Trump. in Netanyahu when it comes to Iran. They both have articulated regime changes, their preferred option. And we need to keep this in mind in everything that we talk about when it comes to U.S. policy in Iran. Donald Trump authorized the Israelis to launch a decapitation strike against Iran in June that went beyond the military, where they did successfully decapitate some senior officers. They tried to kill the president of Iran. Remember, he had to crawl out of a building that was collapsed because of a bomb that struck. They tried to kill the supreme leader of Iran, but he had moved. He didn't stay in the same place. He wasn't where he was supposed to be that

night. They want to replace the regime. As recently as earlier this month, you have the Trump administration talking about, you know, Iranian people in the streets. We need to bring down this horrible regime. This regime has to go. It's time to replace them. That's the policy of the United States. And that's the policy of Israel. Now, the question is how do you implement this policy? Israel's made it clear that they cannot sustain a long, drag-out war with Iran, that they can absorb about 700 missiles. That's three to five days worth of fighting. And then Iran must be dead. The regime must be gone. If it goes beyond that, the pain becomes too hard for Israel to bear. And so Israel is cautioning the United States not to begin, understand what I'm saying,

not to begin military operations until which time Trump is certain of an outcome. And there's no way you can be certain. Donald Trump is talking about bringing a second aircraft carrier into the mix, the George W. Bush. Now it would be the Abraham Lincoln, George W. Bush. Operation Desert Storm, which was a strategic air campaign against Iraq in 1991, six aircraft carriers were deployed together with multiple Air Force fighter and bomber wings, thousands of aircraft attacking a nation that's a quarter the size of Iran. And, you know, we don't have the military capacity to strike. Moreover, with all the aircraft that we brought in

against Iraq, we couldn't destroy 19 mobile scud launchers that launched 49 missiles against Israel. We weren't able to interdict that. Now we're talking about Iran that has thousands of missile launchers, tens of thousands of missiles. We're not going to interdict this. We can't. And so they're not talking about war. Everybody's in there saying, oh, Netanyahu is saying, Trump's got to go to war, got to attack. It's the opposite. Netanyahu is saying, what do we do because we both know we can't attack Iran right now because if we attack, Iran will ride out the attack. They'll destroy Israel. They'll destroy all the bases that we have. I mean, we have 16 tankers at Aludade Air Base. The Iranians right now today could launch a preemptive strike,

a cognizable on Article 51, you know, self-defense of the United Nations Charter, using the Carolina affair, which is a Supreme Court decision about preemptive self-defense because of an imminent threat. Those tankers are there to refuel aircraft. Donald Trump has said he's going to use to bomb Iran. You don't have to wait for the attack. There's the imminent threat. Take them out.

They could do that. And if they did it now, we'd lose everything because we can't defend against it. We can't defend against what the Iranians are going to throw against Israel. We can't defend what they're going to throw against us. We can't defend what they're going to throw against the region. And that's the other voice here too, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, all of these oil-producing, gas-producing nations will lose the totality of their energy production capacity if there's a major regional conflict.

This will not only be devastating for them, but the world. You mentioned Donald Trump's, you know, popularity or unpopularity rating. it's going bad now because of some of the domestic policies he's made. If he goes to war against Iran, he's sunk. He not only will lose the House, he could very well lose the Senate. And if he's not careful, he could lose the Senate to the degree where he could get convicted once he's impeached, because he will be impeached. There's no doubt about that. If Donald Trump attacks Iran, he will be impeached because he will lose the House.

And if he attacks Iran and we have thousands of American dead, we have a collapsed economy because this man went on a war of choice that could have been avoided. had he been serious about diplomacy, you know, we wouldn't have had this. The American people will not forgive him. His base will not forgive him. He campaigned on a, you know, a platform of peace, avoiding the very kind of conflict he's talking about getting this into. And again, you talk about Labrov. I'll finish with this.

You know, the disappointing of Labrov, think about the Iranians for a second. Oraki has to sit down with Jared Kushner, who's not qualified to do anything, to be honest, but he's now half of the negotiating team. Before Kushner went to the Middle East to negotiate, he was meeting in the United States with Iranian diaspora leaders to create the next government of Iran. So we're sending a man to negotiate with the Iranians for an outcome that's supposed to be equitable.

At the same time, he is actively conspiring with Iranians in diaspora, including the Shah's son, the former Shah's son, to create a government to replace the government he's negotiating with. This is stupidity that's on a different level. Then he has Steve Whitkoff, who decides it's a good idea after he negotiates with the Iranians, allegedly in good faith, to go to the Abraham Lincoln. Our negotiator is walking the decks of an aircraft carrier as if he's somehow telling the Iranians, you need to fear me the next time we meet because I have the might of the Abraham Lincoln behind me.

Whoopty-do. One aircraft carrier against Iran, the Iranians aren't losing any. sleep over this. Well, what will Russia do? What will China do if there is a major attack intended to decapitate the leadership of Iran? They're not going to let Iran become dismembered, which is Netanyahu's dream. Well, they don't have a mutual defense pact. So, you know, The idea that Russia is going to intervene militarily on the side of Iran or that China will intervene militarily is difficult to see, especially now with Russia, you know, deeply engaged in this conflict in Ukraine. It's going their way, but there's a heavy commitment of resources for this. They also had to build up military capacity to deal with NATO expansion.

And so to suddenly commit to a direct conflict with the United States over Iran, I think. I think that's a bridge too far that Russia is not going to cross. In China, you know, again, I don't see China projecting military power into Iran that way. What they are doing is providing intelligence information, providing military equipment that has already proven to be effective. I mean, ask yourself how the Iranians became so familiar with Starlink, so familiar that they were able to track the totality of usage of Starlink by the Mossad and CIA opposition people during these recent uprisings and then shut it down instantaneously.

They don't have that kind of experience. Russia does in Ukraine. And I think Russia has provided them with this kind of intelligence to include special equipment that enables the implementation of this tracking and shutting down. I think the Russians are providing a whole bunch of stuff to the Iranians. I wouldn't want to be a B2 bomber pilot going over Iran in this next thing because I think you're going to get shot down. I wouldn't want to be an F-35 pilot or an F-20, two pilots.

that same ways. You know, Russia has been following this, tracking this. They've deciphered the everything we do to include radar signatures, et cetera. And I believe that Russia has opened the books and provided the Iranians with this data. And that's all the world. The Chinese are providing real world satellite information. The, you know, the Iranian missiles right now are targeted on exactly where everything is. There will be no guesswork. And, And so, you know, if the balloon goes up, it will, the Iranian missiles are going to hit the targets that are aimed at. Their targets are going to be based upon real-time intelligence data collected by China.

This is what China and Russia are doing to make sure that any engagement by the United States and by Israel will be extraordinarily painful. And I also believe that the Russians are letting the United States know, maybe not the specifics, but the gist of the assistance, that you're going to get a bloody nose if you go in there. It's going to hurt. Now, Donald Trump is too cocky. You know, Pete Higg-Seth is just too stupid. And these are people who believe their own propaganda.

But the Joint Chiefs of Staff aren't stupid and cocky. They're realists. And, you know, they didn't get to where they are by, you know, by misleading themselves or misleading the troops they lead. And I believe they have already told the president, we can't win this war. Not on the timeline. You need us to win this on.

The price we're going to pay is going to be prohibitive. And it's going to take us forever in a day to assemble the forces necessary to defeat Iran. And by the time we do that, there may not be anything left to, you know, to salvage. The region will be in flames. And then when we go in, there's no guarantee we're going to win. I just, again, remind your audience, Iran's been preparing for this war since 2005, back when Dick Cheney articulated a desire to carry out a regime change strike against Iran. At that time, Iran broke its country up into 12 or 20 military. districts that are capable of operating independent of control from Tehran.

So we could nuke Tehran and these independent military districts will continue to survive. We can take them out one at a time. They won't surrender collectively. We would have to occupy all of Iran. Remember, each one of these military districts, especially the ones that are in the vicinity of Turkey and Israel, have independent ballistic missile launch capability, which means they can continue offensive military operations until they run out of missiles and they have to. tens of thousands of missiles stockpile. The Joint Chiefs of staff know this. They're briefing

the President of the United States, and this is why the President hasn't bombed because he can't bomb. And two aircraft carriers isn't going to give them any leverage to change that calculation. Do you share the fear of some of your colleagues who come on this program that this might become a regional war that would involve other countries? For example, what would the Turks do? Turks are going to get a nuclear weapon. That's what they're going to do. The Turkish foreign minister was silent when asked that question. I mean, this is a derivative of Trump allowing new start to expire.

People don't realize that it's the end of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. We've gone in the wrong direction. Nobody trusts us anymore. Nobody trusts the treaty. And nations are going to start to acquire nuclear weapons. You know, what would Turkey do? Turkey is going to defend its own interests. it's, you know, what's Saudi Arabia going to do?

They're going to lose their oil fields. What's Azerbaijan going to do? They're going to lose their oil fields. If this thing goes, it's going to go south for everybody involved, which is why it's not going to go. I mean, yes, I share my concern that if the balloon goes up, it's going to be devastating. But that's why it's not going to go up because I'll just say this. And I know I'm going to irritate all of your pro-Trump people in your chat room, but I don't

care. Trump is a moral and physical coward. He doesn't have what it takes to actually go to war against an enemy of the and fight back. Iran would knock his block off, knock the military blood. And Trump is also somebody. He's a narcissist. I mean, he is the most, you know, malignant kind of narcissist. It's a disease, a mental illness. This is a man who wants to change the name of the Moynihan train station, just because, you know, I mean, what kind of thinking is this? But he is a man who, you know, wants to have a legacy of success. And he knows, he knows for certain that if he goes

the warrant against Iran, he doesn't get the quick victory. His presidency is over. He will finish his life in jail, rotting, or in a house under house arrest. He will be the man who was impeached more times and probably convicted. So Donald Trump doesn't want that. He doesn't have the courage. This was a man of conviction who said, I truly believe what we're doing in Iran is just. He would say, pound sand, we're going to war.

And he'd stand in front of the American people and explain why we're going to war. He's not going to do that. Because he doesn't know why we're going to war. If he really got dug deep into it, they would come down. We went to war because of Israel, and then that truly double-damms him. So Donald Trump doesn't have the courage. He doesn't have the conviction to actually go to war against Iran. That's my personal belief.

I don't think this man, you know, he knows what the reality is, and there's no amount of force that can be assembled anytime soon that changes that calculation. He has to knock the Iranians out three to five days into the war. The Israelis have made that number very clear. They can absorb 700 Iranian ballistic missiles. That's three to five days. After that, all bets are off. Israel is irreparably damaged.

Netanyahu cannot politically survive, and therefore Israel is saying, don't do it. And right now, Donald Trump, the chiefs of staff, are telling them it's going to take months. Is Trump hearing from anybody, not Heggseth or Rubio or Sebastian Gorka or Stephen Miller, but maybe General Kane? Is he hearing from anybody, anything resembling the, articulate, very sound analysis you just gave? General Kane is telling them that we can't win this war in three to five days. You know, Trump has put for a rumor. Trump was trying.

He tried. Trump said, let's attack Iran now. But it was supposed to be a quick regime change attack. And the Joint Chief said, A, we don't have any defense in place. The Iranians are going to knock us out. We've got nothing. B, we don't have enough military power in place. What do you want to do?

You know, this isn't going to be June, the 12th. of a war where through perfidy you had the Iranians sleeping in their beds when Israel attacked using our intelligence. The Iranians are ready. Their leadership is split up and underground. Their missiles are out, targeted, ready to launch. We don't have the military capacity to knock them out. We can go in there bomb a couple targets, and then they're going to knock us out. Stop, and that's why he stopped. Lindsay Graham, you remember Lindsey Graham was running around chuckling, shortling, about how this was going to happen. I've never been more proud of this president. He's Ronald Reagan. He's done, he is the best thing in the world.

And now Lindsey Graham's looking at going, you know, we better do something because we gave them our word. The Iranian people have been given our word. And now he's critical of Trump. But the reality is Donald Trump knows from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we can't knock Iran out. And Israel can't knock Iran out. So there's no reason to try. If you're going to strike the king, kill the king. They can't kill the Iranian king so they're not going to.

bomb. That's my conclusion. Wow. But he will be under tremendous pressure. Maybe coercion. Who knows what Netanyahu has in his briefcase? He'll certainly be under pressure from Mrs. Adelson and her billionaire

buddies to comply with whatever Bibi wants. Does Netanyahu recognize her? Do you believe you understand the man's thinking as warped as it is? Do you think Netanyahu understands that this could be a death sentence for Israel as he knows it. He already told this to Trump.

Remember, it's Netanyahu that stopped the last attack. Remember the headlines. Israel and Saudi Arabia are calling Trump saying, don't attack. Israel. Why? Because Netanyahu is the one that gave Trump the 700 number. We can absorb 700 missiles. No more than that.

Anything more than that? And it becomes difficult for us to continue to survive as a modern nation state. It becomes almost impossible for me to survive politically. this has to be a knockout blow. So that's the standard set by Netanyahu. He's not coming in with a master attack plan saying, oh, if we do this, we do that. Nanyahu knows what the rules are.

He's coming in to make sure that Trump doesn't negotiate something, to make sure that Trump is staying on script, that the nuclear negotiation is not designed to achieve a solution to the problem, but to extend the time frame. We're not here to resolve the differences between Iran, the United States. We're here to muddy the waters to make sure that there is no final agreement. There is no final settlement so that when the time comes, if the situation change, if the CIA, Mossad can once again resurrect these various cells inside Iran that can rise up and challenge the regime,

that when the time comes, you know, we're ready to strike. What Israel doesn't want is for the United States to get off track. That's why Netanyahu met with Kushner and Whitkoff. I mean, that Zionist cabal there, it's sickening, sickening. I'm not anti-Semitic. I don't want to imply anything other than the statement of fact. When you have pro-Israel Zionist members of the Trump administration, meaning with Bibi Netanyahu and plotting this out,

it makes it clear who America works for. America doesn't work for the American people. We work for the interest of Israel. And right now, Israel is telling the President of the United States not to do the one thing that would be good for the American people, will be good for the American people to have a deal with Iran to bring peace and stability to the region. That would be good for the American people. Donald Trump won't be allowed to do this.

He will have to continue to muddy the waters to extend this to make sure that there is never a viable deal with Iran. And that leaves the door open for military action down the road. Scott Ritter, thank you very much, my dear friend. A brilliant, gifted and courageous analysis of ever heard one. Chris reminds me that our favorite senator from South Carolina referred to Trump as Ronald Reagan plus in that lament, that half lament, half cheerleading, absurd statement he made on Fox News on Sunday. I don't even have the courage to turn your stomach by playing it again. But thank you, Scott. All we need is to play him twitching his feet in the background.

I mean, I love the fact that Lindsey Graham is so uncomfortable right now. It brings joy to my life. So that's the one good thing that's come out of this is that Donald Trump's inability to strike Iran makes Lindsay Graham uncomfortable. Well, we'll see where this goes. If it happens, we'll lead you on the air right away. But thank you, my dear friend. All the best to you. Thanks.

Of course. What a tiger. What a brilliant articulator of the present situation that Donald Trump has gotten the country into. One more for you today. on the same subject matter, is peace with Iran possible with Trump and the White House? Three o'clock, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom.