Judging Freedom - Scott Ritter: Can Iran Survive Trump?

Episode Date: April 21, 2025

Scott Ritter: Can Iran Survive Trump?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, April 21st, 2025. Scott Riddle will be here with us in just a moment on can Iran survive Donald Trump? But first this. While the markets are giving us whiplash, have you seen the price of gold? It's soaring. In the past 12 months, gold has risen to more than $3,000 an ounce. I'm so glad I bought my gold. It's not too late for you to buy yours. The same experts that predicted gold at $3,200 an ounce now predict gold at $4,500 or more in the next year.

What's driving the price higher? Paper currencies. All around the world, they are falling in value. Big money is in panic, as falling currencies shrink the value of their paper wealth. That's why big banks and billionaires are buying gold in record amounts. As long as paper money keeps falling they'll keep buying and gold will keep rising. So do what I did. Call my friends at Lear Capital. You'll have a great conversation and they'll send you very helpful information.

Learn how you can store gold in your IRA tax and penalty free or have it sent directly to your doorstep. There's zero pressure to buy and you have a 100% risk-free purchase guarantee. It's time to see if gold is right for you. Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you. Scott Ritter, welcome here, my dear friend. Always a pleasure to chat with you.

Before we get to some of the things that you have written about in your new book. And before we get there it is highway to hell. Before we get to can Iran survived Donald Trump, I just want to ask you about the pope, is there any Iran survived Donald Trump. I just want to ask you about the Pope. Is there any geopolitical significance to the death of Pope Francis or stated differently, does the Holy See, which is the actual name of the country there, the city state, have any ability to influence geopolitical events? Well, the pope has no armies, and that's a problem when it comes to influencing geopolitical events because it does come down to boots on the ground. What the Vatican, the Holy See, the pope, has going for him is moral authority. The Catholic Church is, you know, the foundational

church of the Christian religion. It has influence that is worldwide. There are, you know, despite the fact that maybe in the West, you know, church attendance is falling around the world, you know, the Catholic faith resonates in Africa, in Asia, and elsewhere. And therefore, the word of the pope is something that people listen to and adhere to. And to the extent the Holy See has geopolitical significances, the extent to which there is a consistent morally-based message that resonates with people around the world to the extent that it becomes politically manifested in their respective nations.

I think the pope has always been, or at least recently been loathed to be seen as being involved in the domestic political affairs of nations. But for the Pope to, you know, we see the Pope weigh in on issues that have traditionally been sensitive to the Catholic faith, abortion and things of this nature.

If the Pope weighed in with the same consistency and although I guess lately they had been too consistent in that, but the same fervor on the issue of peace, maybe more more geopolitical significance. But right now, I think that the Catholic Church, the Vatican, the Holy See has missed an opportunity because they haven't weighed in on these critical existential issues of our time, war and peace. The papacy has been silent pretty much. So here's what NPR said. I know it's NPR, but here's what they said. Pope Francis has been outspoken in his criticism of Israel's military campaign in Gaza.

Last month, he described the humanitarian situation there as, quote, shameful. And he said there should be an investigation into whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide. Now, this thing that I just read you, this clip I just read you is dated February 19th, 2025, so two months ago. There should be an investigation into whether it constitutes genocide and indisputably constitutes genocide. He should have gone there or sent, if he's too sick, sent Cardinal Perilin, the Secretary of State, and stand in front of Netanyahu and say stop. the Secretary of State and stand in front of Netanyahu and say stop. Yeah, when you have weak statements of that nature, because that is a weak statement, that's like me calling Hurricane Katrina a windstorm. When we have windstorms of these nature, we should be concerned. No, it's not a windstorm, it's a hurricane. And what's happening in Gaza is not shameful, it's genocide. And it has a name, and

that name should be shouted out from the top. The pope is a figure of moral authority. And to have somebody of the pope's stature call what's happening in Gaza by its true name would have geopolitical consequences. But to soft-pedal it the way he has, it dilutes the effectiveness and the impact that the Pope and the Holy See could have. Jumping to Ukraine before we get to Iran, our Secretary Rubio, in your view, are Secretary Rubio and President Trump serious about turning off the spigot of military supplies to Kiev

in another week? Is this finally gonna happen? Well, I haven't heard the president articulate. I think I've heard Marco Rubio get out and say things that a lot of people are reading into. I just want to remind people that Secretary of State Rubio has not been the lead on the Ukrainian-Russian negotiations. That's Steve Witkoff. And I haven't heard Mr. Witkoff come out and say anything of this nature. And I haven't heard the president come out and speak to it as explicitly as Rubio has. I think there's a little bit of freelancing taking place

right now by the Secretary of State and by his ideological counterpart, General Keith Kellogg, who is also weighed in on this issue. But until I hear the president articulate this clearly, I think this is just political maneuvering taking place in a camp that has always been uncomfortable about this peace initiative in the present.

I'm going to play for you what Secretary Rubio said on Friday, Good Friday. And then I'm going to play for you what the president said on Good Friday after he heard what Secretary Rubio said. So Chris, back to back, cut one and cut two. We're not going to continue to fly all over the world and do meeting after meeting after meeting if no progress is being made. So if they're serious about peace, either side or both, we want to help. If it's not going to happen, then we're just going to move on.

We're going to move on to other topics that are equally if not more important in some ways to the United States. I think from the U.S. perspective, we've spent three years, billions of dollars, supporting the Ukrainian side, but now we've reached the point where we have other things we have to focus on we're prepared to be engaged in this as long as it takes but not indefinitely not without progress if this is not possible we're gonna need to move on I think the president feels strongly that we've dedicated a tremendous we've done more in 80 days and Biden never did to bring this war to an end

Secretary Rubio said that the US will have to figure out whether a deal can be done between Russia and Ukraine in a matter of days or you will just move on. Yeah, very short. How many days is that? No specific number of days, but quickly, we want to get it done. If for some reason one of the two parties makes it very difficult, we're just going to say you're foolish, you're fools, you're horrible people, and we're going to just take a pass.

But hopefully we won't have to do that. And Marco is right in saying we're getting we want to see it end. But there's more alignment there than I had thought. I think what's in the crosshairs here is Ukraine. They're the horrible party. They're the ones that are causing the problems. They're the ones that refuse to deal with reality. And then that would be the United States

walking away from Ukraine, which would be a tremendous victory for Russia. It would hasten a Russian military victory. It would put the United States in a more difficult position with Europe though. I mean, by shutting down one frustrating course of action, you're going to open up a whole new bag of worms when it comes to Europe. So we'll see what happens.

If the president turns off the spigot of military aid, and remember the legislation authorized by Congress and the Biden administration, one of the authorizations was very late in his term, says subject to the discretion of the president. So the president can turn that spigot off whenever he wants. If he turns that spigot off, what about General Cavoli and all of his people in Germany planning and plotting the military assault? And what about American intel on the ground in Ukraine and Russia? Do they stop us well?" Shopify helps you sell at every stage of your business. Like that, let's put it online and see what happens stage.

And the site is live. That we opened a store and need a fast checkout stage. Thanks! You're all set. That count it up and ship it around the globe stage. This one's going to Thailand! And that, wait, did we just hit a million orders stage? Whatever your stage, businesses that grow, grow with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 a month trial at Shopify.com slash listen.

Well, I think General Cavoli's people are already not engaged in the operational planning. That was being done through the Ramstein contact group. That was the logistics end of it, but that fed into the whole cooperation. I think the British have taken over the lead for that. And so the operational planning right now is being done with a British lead, French support in America sort of hanging in the background, which is a frustrating place for Kovalev to be because he is the, you know, the commander of NATO forces. And yet he's has to take a backseat to this plan because of his status as an American.

We are providing intelligence, my understanding though, this is primarily defensive in nature, that is the early warning notifications of Russian missile launches so that the Ukrainians can cue their air defense systems. But we're no longer providing the targeting data that was used by the Ukrainians to strike Russia with their attack missiles, their high Mars missiles, or even, you know, with their artillery systems. And so, you know, there there's been a throttling down, a significant throttling down of support to Ukraine.

Before we jump to Iran, Pete Hegseth seems to be in some hot water again. The New York Times reports and it cites its sources as three people that he fired. Okay, they're not happy that he fired them. They were very, very close to them. They're not low-level people. The allegation is that yet again,

he posted sensitive military attack plans in a non-secure site to which his wife, his brother, and his personal lawyer had access. They were part of the group receiving the text. And then, when first confronted with that at the White House Easter egg roll, okay they do these silly things, I don't know why he was there, but at the White House Easter egg roll, he said this, cut number seven. You know, what a big surprise that a bunch of a few leakers get fired and suddenly a bunch of hit pieces come out from the same media that peddled the Russia hoax, won't

give back their Pulitzers. They got Pulitzers for a bunch of lies. Pulitzers for a bunch of lies and on hoaxes time and time and time again and as they peddle those lies no one ever calls them on it. See this is what the media does they take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations. Not gonna work with me. And anonymous smears from disgruntled former employees on old news doesn't matter.

This is why we're fighting the fake news media. This is why we're fighting slash and burn Democrats. This is why we're fighting hoaxsters. Hoaxsters. This group, no no, this group right here, full of hoaxsters that peddle anonymous sources from leakers with axes to grind and then you put it all together as if it's some news story. Did you hear in there a denial that he posted the military plans in this non-secure website? If he did post them there, he jeopardized fighter pilots. How do they feel about a sarcastic response like the one we just witnessed?

I can't speak for, you know, our military, like everything else, has become very politicized. And there are officers today who stand behind the president right or wrong, behind the secretary of defense right or wrong for political reasons. The military is not supposed to be politicized, supposed to be apolitical, nonpartisan, which means that they need to look at everything through a professional lens.

And a key aspect of being professional is being able to adhere to, you know, standard security protocols on how to handle classified information. And if you have the Secretary of Defense, who is the number one guy in the Department of Defense, blowing through these protocols, doing whatever he wants, doing things that would get anybody else fired, court-martialed, maybe even jail time, and trying to sit in there and taking no responsibility for it. This is a very bad thing for morale in the Department of Defense.

As I said, there's going to be those officers who love Trump right or wrong, but that's not their job. That's their personal preference. But their job is to be loyal to the Constitution and loyal to the United States, not to a president. And if Pete Hegseth is guilty of these, and as you said, there was no denial there. And it's hard to say anonymous sources when we know exactly who the three sources are. So these are very specific allegations that seem to be corroborated with hard evidence.

The best he could say it's an old story, perhaps. But the statute of limitations of security violations is still in play, Mr. Hegseth. I can guarantee you that had Major Scott Ritter done something of this sort, I'd be stripped of my security clearances. There would be an investigation and I could be facing jail time. What is your take? Now I'm transitioning over to Iran on what happened over the weekend.

It sounds as in, I think in Rome, with the negotiations, it sounds as though from the perspective of the Iranian foreign minister, that we're almost back to JCPOA, which is where Witkoff was the first time, it sounds as though they have reached what would have been if you were around your level, the technical level of enrichment

and equipment and things like that. Am I misreading this because I'm optimistic and want a peaceful settlement rather than a Netanyahu led attack? No, I think that's the direction we're heading now. Whether or not, I think the baseline is JCPOA which means going back to 2015 agreement where Iran was allowed to enrich up to 3.6, 3.7 percent, enough for the fuel rods that are used in

the Boucher nuclear reactor. And then that this would be sized appropriately, meaning their enrichment capacity would be sized appropriately to meaning their enrichment capacity would be sized appropriately to the need. I think also one thing that would be included here is no sunset clauses, meaning the ability to expand haphazardly without restraint will be removed because that was what caused Donald Trump to shut down the JCPOA to begin with, were the sunset clauses. But I think Iran has made it clear that a red line for it is its nuclear program, meaning they must be allowed to have an enrichment capability. And initially, Steve

Witkov had talked about just this, 3.65%, 3.7%. He subsequently walked that back as pressure came in from the Israelis, etc. for zero enrichment. But I think zero enrichment, of course, was the Obama starting point, too. I think they have the basics of a deal here. And it's a good deal. It's a smart deal. If the Iranians are actually willing to do this, then this is what I've said they've had to do all along. And it's a very, very good move on their part. And it's a move that the Trump administration would be wise to buy on.

If Trump can get this deal, limiting it to 3.6, 3.7% scaled to the actual need of Iran with no sunset clauses, no ability to amass enrichment to have centrifuges beyond which is necessary to enrich for the current fuel requirements. And you can even maybe weave into some things with the Russians where they remove enriched uranium in excess of Iran's needs, this is a better deal. And a deal that doesn't time itself out with sunset clauses. So it's a deal that could actually be talked about

in long-term and we would have peace. Because this is the issue. If Trump's issue is nuclear weapons, then this deal that they appear to be on the cusp of reaching in Rome, that's the solution. And I'm very optimistic with it. It doesn't mean we're out of the woods yet. Israel will do everything they can to trip this up. You already hear the Israelis saying,

if you do this deal, we will unilaterally attack the Iranian nuclear program, a limited attack. I don't see the United States allowing that to happen. But the Israelis were going for zero option because they believed that the Iranians would never accept that, and that would allow the United States to bomb Iran, which is what Israel has always wanted. This deal that is shaping up, it's not what Netanyahu wants.

But he's not calling the shots. Donald Trump is. And this will be a test of Donald Trump's strength in Washington DC because he will have to push through a lot of obstacles to get this deal finalized, because there's a lot of people in Washington DC who are taking the Israeli side, a lot of lobbyists, a lot of think tanks, et cetera. But I will just tell you, somebody has been following this issue for a long time.

This negotiation path that Steve Witkoff is on, this is Nobel Peace Prize winning type stuff. This is the kind of stuff that the world should applaud, because we are walking away from a war that would have been devastating for all parties involved. Well, I was going to ask you what you thought Netanyahu would do. I don't know. Does Trump have the ability? I guess it would either be moral suasion or, hey, Bibi, you're not getting any delivery of military equipment anymore. Does Trump have the strength to say to him, no, hands off Iran. This is the deal we want.

This is the deal we're taking. Or taking into account all the other factors, the lobby, the donor class, all that stuff. Will Trump cave? That's the million dollar question. I do think that Trump has what it takes to stand up to Benjamin Netanyahu. He doesn't like Benjamin Netanyahu. I again remind people that he posted two clips of Jeffrey Sachs that were very critical of Benjamin Netanyahu, in particular how Netanyahu in Israel got America caught up in Middle Eastern conflicts that we

don't want. And we don't want a war in Iran. And here we have a situation where Netanyahu is trying to get us involved in a war we don't want, we don't need. We're actually negotiating a good deal to prevent this war. I do believe that Trump has the ability to say no to Netanyahu. Whether or not he has the ability to stand up to the domestic pressure is another issue. I mean, he has created his own set of problems by doing everything at once. I mean, we have this whole tariff issue right now

and a potential or an actual trade war with China where we need, you know, different players to come in and work. And, you know, that opens the door for people having leverage on Trump saying, hey, we'll help you here, but you need to do X Y and Z And it could lead for him You know lead to a situation where he doesn't have the same kind of domestic political resolve

But in terms of standing up to Benjamin Netanyahu, this is a no-brainer. He'll just tell Netanyahu no Okay, so you mentioned Jeff Sachs who's on the program in half an hour Jeff Just sent us a report from something called DropSight News. Now I never heard of this person. Appears to be a woman named Mirav Serin, M-E-R-A-V-C-E-R-E-N, a joint Israeli American citizen, a former Israeli official in the IDF has just been appointed by Trump to the National Security Council. Why would we have a former Israeli defense person on the American National Security Council? Well, we had Fiona Hill for a while. She was British and also Zionist. The National Security Council is, that's the purview, even though it says Trump appointed, I believe the person responsible for this is Michael Waltz, who is a very pro-Zionist,

pro-Israeli person, and he's building his team. And the president will probably sign off on it because to be honest, that team doesn't matter. This, you know, Donald Trump will do what Donald Trump wants to do. All right. So this piece that Jeff sent from this responsible statecraft.org drop site news. I never heard of either of them. Scott says former Israeli official leading Israel Iran desk at the White House. What does that mean? Israel Iran desk? desk is responsible for coordinating all policy in the United States about Israel and Iran. So when you have an interagency meeting, the National Security Council is an advisory body. The National Security Advisor is the advisor. The president will issue directives. The National Security Advisor will then convene, first of all, he'll convene his

desk officers and get briefed up on them. And then he'll put forward a program. He'll call in the principals. He is a principal. That means the principals are the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, et cetera. And he'll say, this is what the president wants. And then the principals will go back to their different groups, and each one of them has their own analytical bodies, advisory bodies, and they will come up with something. They'll bring it into the National Security Council, and if it's Israeli-Iran related, it'll go through the Israeli desk. So this person will be responsible for receiving input

and then shaping it into a consensus argument that's then taken to the deputy level for further refinement. So this person becomes the shepherd of Israeli-Iranian policy on behalf of Michael Waltz. It's a very influential position, but at the end of the day, this person is not a policy maker. They're a policy shaper. They do have the ability to emphasize certain things over others, but their job is to receive data from different people and then to coordinate, as you turn this into, implementable policy.

Why should that job be held by a former IDF person? And how could anybody possibly claim that that human being has American interests at heart or can be fair between Iran and Israel when she's a former IDF official? that at all. I think this is it's the same thing when you go to the State Department, and you take a look at the State Department Foreign Service officers or the civil servants who manage US Israeli issues. Every single one of them is Jewish. And every single one of them is affiliated with American Jewish American Zionist, you know, advisory groups. They are all pro-Israel. Some of them have dual citizenship. The Israelis have, for a long time, hijacked this. They really made a concerted effort in this after the 1970s and 80s, where they pushed out the Arabists. There used to be a big fraternity of people who cut their teeth in the streets of the various Arab capitals in the region. Back in, I guess, the 70s when we were trying

to sell AWACS to Saudi Arabia, that's when the pro-Israeli lobby said, we have to take control of this. They began to go to war against the Arabists that exist in the State Department and elsewhere. And they pushed them out. And now they've basically hijacked the policymaking apparatus of the United States. This isn't unique to Donald Trump. During Joe Biden, it was the same. During Obama, it was the same.

The pro-Israeli lobby has hijacked the national security and foreign policy, you know, influencing departments for some time now. All right. Before we go, two retired colonels disagreeing with each other. I would like your input on this. Chris Colonel Davis and Colonel McGregor. What nation on the planet can have their embassy destroyed in another country and to have an assassination in their capital city on an inauguration and not go to war with somebody,

yet that's exactly what Iran didn't do because they don't have the power to do it. So that should tell you. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. That's a fundamentally false statement. Which part? False, false, false. They don't have the power to go to war. You haven't looked carefully at Iran.

Iran's arsenal of missiles is enormous. It could flatten Israel in a day. They have the power to go to war. They have chosen repeatedly to avoid war. And I've said this a thousand times. No one in the Middle East is interested in a war except Israel and the United States. What are your thoughts? Colonel MacGregor is 100% correct. First of all, you know know what the Israelis did was an affront against Iran, but the Iranian response which was Initially to promise operation to promise the initial attack and then to promise to Was to establish Iran's ballistic missile deterrence as a reality.

So Colonel Davis is 100% wrong. Iran did attack Israel, but they did so in a way not to destroy Israel because as Colonel McGregor says, they don't want to go to war, but they had to do something. The idea that Iran didn't do anything after their consulate was bombed in Damascus or after Haneeya was assassinated on Iran inauguration day in Tehran is just absurd. Iran did everything. Iran showed that the ballistic missile defenses of Israel were null and void, would be penetrated like a hot knife through butter, even when reinforced with America's considerable ballistic missile defense systems, including the satellites,

the ships, the aircraft. The Iranian missiles penetrated, hit the targets they needed to hit, not because they were seeking to destroy Israel, but they were seeking to create ballistic missile-based deterrents, which they have done. Colonel MacGregor is 100% correct. If Iran wanted to, they could launch sufficient ballistic missile capacity at Israel that would do extensive damage,

perhaps nation killing damage. So it's not that Iran can't do it, it's that Iran doesn't want to do it because Iran's not looking for a war. Exactly the point that Colonel McGregor made. For those that are unfamiliar with your new book, tell us a little bit about it, Scotty. Well, the book is The Highway to Hell. It's a book that discusses the danger of nuclear war and of the current arms race. I cover from the period of 2015 until 2024. And you get to track in real time the analysis that's done,

because this book is a collection of articles that have been written from 2015 until 2024 about America's arms control policy, about how we approach INF Treaty getting out of it, how we approach the New START Treaty, etc. Each article is written from the fresh perspective of the time that it was happening. And so this isn't about a historian looking backwards in time re interpreting events, you're getting the raw, you know, emotion of the moment, and you get to track it as you bring it up to the present day. And the goal of the book is to again,

educate and inform people about the dangers of nuclear weapons, the risk of nuclear war and the absolute necessity for arms control and disarmament. It's a terrific book, as you know, at your request, I read it and wrote a blurb which you published and I was thrilled to do so, not just because we're friends and colleagues, but because the book is profoundly, profoundly worth reading. Scotty, thank you very much, my dear friend. Always a pleasure.

Thanks for accommodating my schedule today. Thanks for having me on. Of course. Coming up at 4 15, we originally said four at 4 15 this afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Judge Napolitano for Judging You You