Judging Freedom - Upcoming Scott Ritter : Why Iran Is Still Winning Trump's War

Episode Date: May 11, 2026

Scott Ritter : Why Iran Is Still Winning Trump's WarSee 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, May 11, 2016. Scott Ritter joins us now. Scott, a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you very much. I want to talk to you at someone about Maverick has his own opinions about how and why Iran has effectively defeated the United States and Israel. But before we get there, did Israel just violate the sovereign integrity of Iraq by just moving in and building a military force? facility on Iraq property? Well, they didn't just do it.

This is a facility that's been in place well before the war. Some thought that it could have actually been active in the June conflict as well. But there's no doubt about it. The Iraqi government was neither, you know, conferenced in on this or consulted or nor did they give their approval. approval for this. So it's an absolute violation of of the Iraqi sovereignty by the state of Israel. It's the kind of violation that normally results in a declaration of war. You know,

clearly Iraq is in no position to go to war against Israel. But, you know, the other thing is that the United States was a willing and, you know, able a better of this. There are indications that this base was also used by U.S. Special Operations Forces. as a forward operating base for potential operations in Iran. So it's not just Israel that violated the sovereignty of Iraq. It was the United States as well. Is this what happens when the president of the United States says

I have no need for international law and the Secretary of Defense calls rules of war stupid? Unfortunately, this is what happens when any American president gets involved in wars of aggression. You know, I'm not saying that we have done something of this scope and scale. But, you know, the United States does not respect the sovereignty of anybody when it comes to military operations. We've maintained secret operations facilities without the knowledge of governments and in other countries before. But, you know, the problem here isn't so much that we're continuing past practice. When the president says that he doesn't care about international law and when Hegseth speaks about more lethality, less legality.

What we're talking about is straight up war crimes. You know, the actions taken in Iran, you know, with no restrictions that led to the slaughter of 165 of Iranian schoolchildren, attacks on schools, hospitals, civilian installations, the murder of thousands of Iranian civilians by the United States. You know, these are the kind of war crimes that are committed when you have a president that says, I'm not bound by the Constitution and the Secretary of Defense slash War who pushes for lethality and without any consideration of legality. So what would happen if the Chinese built some sort of a facility in the Arizona desert

without us knowing about it? It would be an act of war, wouldn't it? Well, it is an act of war. We would treat it as an act of war. We most certainly would. We wouldn't tolerate it at all. You know, the problem is, you know, the, the, the, the, the, Iraqis had an election and they elected as their prime minister, a gentleman named Al-Awi.

He was, you know, previously a prime minister and we rejected it. So they had an election and we said no. So much for the defenders of democracy, you know, the sooner we get driven out of Iraq, the better. I think the world is recognized, especially the Middle East, that the United States is a poison. And if you continue to allow the United States to have a presence, it's the equivalent of drinking from a cup of poison and whatever sovereignty you have will die. Did, in your view, did U.S. and Israeli military planners actually think they could achieve their goals in the case of Netanyahu dismemberment of the country in the case of Trump, whatever Netanyahu wanted, just by spending more money? Yeah, it's tough for me to put myself in their decision-making because I operate on the rational thought process where, you know, you connect the dots and you lead to logical conclusions. There was no rationality in any aspect of this planning. You know, the Israelis were just clearly desperate. You know, Netanyahu was running out of options with Gaza where the, where Hamas has not been defeated out of options with Hezbo.

They have not been defeated. He needed to expand this conflict and draw the United States in. Unfortunately for the American people and the rest of the world, he had a president who apparently is incapable of saying no to any request put forward by the Israelis. And the president agreed to participate in this war. You know, throwing money at this problem, throwing more military power. Again, we can't deal with rationality. We're dealing with an Israeli leader whose back is against the wall facing criminal prosecution, seeing his political legacy go down in flames if he doesn't get some sort of tremendous victory out of Iran.

And we see an American president placing the same thing. So what we need instead of geopolitical analysts are forensic psychologists. Wow. How and why did Iran effectively defeat the United States and Israel? Well, first of all, we need to understand that Iran did. didn't start this war, so Iran didn't have any war objectives going into this war, so we can't evaluate this from, you know, what did Iran achieve? What we have to do is take a look with the United States and Israel wanted. We wanted regime change. We wanted the neutralization of Iranian's ballistic missile capability, and we wanted the eradication of Iran's nuclear program.

And we have achieved none of these. The regime is stronger than ever. The ballistic missiles are not at 18 percent as the president says, or at 70%, as the CIA says, they're at 120%, as the Iranian foreign minister points out. Iran has not only reconstituted the totality of its pre-war ballistic missile capabilities, but has expanded it by 20%. So Iran is far stronger today in ballistic missiles than they were when the war started. And, of course, the nuclear program has not been eradicated, and the United States has not achieved anything in that regard. So we have failed to the board. But, you know, more importantly, we have failed, you know, in a manner which we have never failed before. You know, I point out that, you know, we have lost wars. You know, we lost the

Vietnam War. We lost the war in Afghanistan. We even lost the conflict in Iraq. But these were political defeats. These were losses that came when the American people and the American political establishment, lost the will to continue. These were not losses that were accrued by us being physically defeated on the battlefield. This war is different. We've been physically defeated. We have not accomplished our objectives, and we're out of ammunition. That's the bottom line. I mean, thank you, Senator Kelly for pointing out that which we all knew about. We have nothing left, and we can't replace it. We're at zero across the board, which means we've not only been strategically defeated Iran, but we now have lost any strategic ability to project power effectively

or threaten the projection of power effectively in the Pacific or in Europe. I mean, you know, no one can fear us now because we have zero capacity to defend ourselves. If the Chinese opted to go to Taiwan today, there was nothing we can do. Wow. You know, and the same thing. If the Russians made a push on, there's nothing we can do. We have no standoff weapons. None. We have no missiles to defend to shoot down. None. We're down to zero. We've depleted the arsenal.

So, you know, the this is a defeat across the board. Robert Kagan, who's a very neo-conservative guy, has written about this in the Atlantic, which is not a, you know, left-wing leaning, you know, anti-war publication. It's, you know, a transatlantic booster, always in favor of Israel and the push against Iran. and he's come out and basically said what I just said, that this is a strategic defeat like anything we've ever suffered. Wow. Isn't he Mr. Victoria Newland? He is Mr. Victoria Newland. He's also the guy when Dick Cheney needed a pep talk. He was the guy that Dick Cheney called up. I mean, we are talking about, you know, a hardcore, neo-conservative. And, you know, he is saying this is a defeat, unlike which United States is, this is the kind of defeat that changes.

the global order. Does the Pentagon recognize that it is depleted? Or are they still think that they could conduct a massive bombing rate as Trump has been threatening as recently as last night on Iran? No, they were the ones that gave Senator Kelly the briefing. They know what the scorecard is. You know, the irony is that Kelly and Hegset had an exchange in the Senate just a little while ago public exchange where Hegstaff all but acknowledged that we had drawn things down, but he lied.

He said we were going to rebuild. We could reconstitute. We were optimistic. The briefing that was given is the exact opposite of that. They are saying, we've got nothing, literally nothing, and we can't rebuild. We don't have time to rebuild. We don't have the production capacity to rebuild. And in some cases, China controls the ability to rebuild because China controls the technology we need to build these missiles. A lot of the components that we use are, you know, come from China, irony. So literally we're at zero and we have no capacity to rebuild. We, America has literally, you know, gutted itself from a military standpoint. And this is what, you know, rather than, you know, people are talking about the prosecution of Senator Kelly right now, we should applaud

him for being honest because we're being lied to by the, by the administration. We're being lied to by the American president were being lied to by the Secretary of Defense slash War, we're putting forward this face of strength when there is no strength. The American people deserve to have the truth told to them, especially about issues of war and peace. Alster Crook told me this morning that the United States is the slowest of major countries in building equipment and resupplying and construction. If that's true, why is that the case?

Trump thinks he can buy anything. He wants $1.7 trillion for Hagseth to spend in the next year. Just remember this. Donald Trump knows nothing about the military, zero. And yet he's such an egomaniac that he continues to believe that his opinion matters. His opinion doesn't. Pete Hedgson also knows nothing. He's just a cheerleader, a Fox News cheerleader. No offense. Judge, but he'll...

No offense at all. So all the man does is cheerlead. The experts are the generals who have worked their way through the system, and they understand these, you know, how defense procurement goes. And Congress has created this system. We have a defense industry now whose sole functions to make money for shareholders. They don't exist to produce weapons for the American warfighter. They don't.

And the weapons we produce are outdated by the time we produce them. They don't work. and they just cost far more money than their worth. We have a system where instead of having a prime contractor that can rapidly do turnaround, we take a weapon and we break it up and we parse it out to as many congressional districts as possible, so we spread load the largesse that's being put down there

to put money in the pockets of constituents who then continue to support the specific representative in question. This is a money-making machine. where they take U.S. taxpayer dollars and they flow it through the defense industry back into the communities. People might say that's good. You know, for all the people out there going, I hate communism. We have the most communist system in the world where we take the taxpayers' money and we put it through the military and flow it back in. It's government-funded economy. That's it. And it's not designed to produce weapons for the warfighter. It's designed to enrich people.

We are incapable of quick turnaround, literally incapable. We have so many rules, regulations, et cetera, but there's also, that's not the issue. You could work on, you know, on regulations. It's the way this system has worked. It's the desire. It's the underlying sentiment. The defense industry doesn't exist to protect you. People should know that.

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon. These aren't people that are pro-American. They like to fly the American flag and paste it over everything and say, we're here for you. They're not. They're here to rob you blind. and give you the worst weapons possible. If you think the Patriot missiles is good, look at its performance. It sucks.

None of our weapons work. None of our weapons work the way they're supposed to. They are overhyped, and then we send our men and women into harm's way, and then we're shot, stuff goes wrong, and pilots get shot down, and equipment breaks, and people run out of ammunition. The system's broke, Judge, and there's no way you can spend your way out of this. The $1.5 trillion, I promise you this, we will become weaker if we put that money into the system because none of that money will be used where it needs to be used.

We'll all go into the pockets of the defense industry. Aren't there admirals and generals who know what you know or has Hexeth fired them? No, they all know. But, Judge, again, I don't mean to be too insulting of the admirals and generals today. But I put any one of them in front of me. You don't make four stars unless you cycle through defense industry. Okay. And now they all know that when they retire, they have a finite paycheck.

I mean, it's nice if you want to live the middle class lifestyle, which I'm more than happy to do. But these guys, once you get four star general, you're used to the first class treatment. You're used to the big corporate jets. You're used to doors being open. You're used to people treating your life. So when you retire, you want to get on as many boards as possible to be advising people. You want to be in a position to get on that lock. Martin Board or other defense industry boards.

That's how you make your money. That's how you become a millionaire. I watch generals do this all the time. And you know that the way it works now is by the time you get selected for lieutenant colonel, you're being selected for your potential to be absorbed by the system. You're not selected for lieutenant colonel because you're going to be an effective battalion commander or good combat leader. No, no, no.

We don't do that anymore. You're elected because you're a politician. You're willing to make the compromises. Then to get to colonel, you've already had. to go through a defense industry cycle, and you've already sold your soul. And once they put on that first star, it's over. You're not there for the troops anymore. You're there for yourself.

You're there for defense industry. You're there for the system. These generals suck. They should all be fired, and we should promote majors who have good combat records up because they can't do a worse job. We just need honest people anymore. We don't have honest leaders anymore. Not a single one of them are honest.

Look at the boards that all of these retired generals sit on and tell me I'm wrong. You don't get to sit on these boards unless you sold your soul to the devil. If China decided to use military force to solidify its control over Taiwan, would the United States be in a position to resist? No. Our carrier battle groups will be sunk before they could get in range to launch the aircraft. Our aircraft will get shot down if they were anywhere near the Chinese coast. And we don't how longer have standoff weapons.

all the weapons we were going to use to sit back and take out Chinese missile batteries and all that stuff, they're gone. We blew them in Iran. We don't have any more. So the Chinese, they'll just sit there and they'll saturate Taiwan with ballistic missiles. And the missile defense systems that are supposed to shoot them down don't work. The ones that do work, there is no ammunition for them. And it's over. Gameful match, China.

Fortunately, China doesn't want to do that. China doesn't want to destroy Taiwan. China wants to absorb Taiwan. which they should be able to do because of our one China policy. But the one China policy has always been alive since it was it was promulgated to begin with. Right, right. What leverage were to use the language of the streets, what cards does Trump have for his meeting with President Xi on Friday?

None whatsoever, none. You know, he wanted, and I'm glad you brought China up because, you know, Everybody's talking about this Iran conflict as if it's a conflict that's been foisted on us by Israel. And it has been. And Israel, of course, pushed for it. And Trump said yes. But the people in the administration that said, this is a good idea. One of them was Scott Besson, that was Secretary of Treasury.

And what he was telling the president is this is our opportunity to deny China yet another energy supplier. We did that with Venezuela. The president already has Maduro's head on the bag that he can bring to Xi. That was the plan. And he was supposed to be bringing the Iranian head as well. Top of the regime, quick take over. We own the Iranian oil production and we cut them off from China. And then we roll into that meeting, throw two heads on the table and say, China, we can get you this energy, but you have to start playing ball with us.

You have to, for instance, start, you know, we want you to split from the Russians and we want these bricks things to go away and we want all this to happen. That was the plan. That was a Scott Besson plan to bring China to its knees. He likes to say that a lot. He tried to bring Russia to its knees. It didn't work out too well. He tried to bring Iran to its knees. That's not working out too well.

But now he wants to bring China to its knees. That didn't work. That's why Trump canceled the first meeting because he didn't have that second head. And now he's got nothing. I mean, to give you an example of the humiliation in the United States has suffered because of Scott Besson and because of Marco Rubio and because of our Chinese policy. You know, we in the name of the Donroe doctrine, we told the Chinese they had to get out of Panama. We told the Panamanians they had to cancel it.

the port management contracts they had with these companies. Panama dutifully obeyed. And we said, yeah, we've removed China from the Americas. We're doing great. The Chinese went, all right, any company that does business in that port can't do business in China. You know how many companies do business in that port today? None. Zero.

And that's a big problem right now because, you know, it's hurting Panama. It's hurting companies. But that's the leverage the Chinese have. If they understand now that they can tell the United States to pound sand, which they did. We put secondary sanctions on private Chinese oil refineries that were receiving Iranian oil. And Chinese government came in and said, ignore them. I told the refinery, ignore them. Anybody who sanctions a Chinese refinery will get hit with counter sanctions.

And that's what we told the United States. China told the United States, we're ready to go to economic war. And that's where China is right now. Now they have the strategic advantage. The only thing that Trump can bring to the table right now is to tell the Chinese, how can we cooperate to bring an end to this so we can get the oil flowing back to you and we can get the oil flowing and everything. Cooperate with the Chinese. That's 180 degrees from what he's been preaching his first year and a half in the white in this term. That's the only choice he has right now because he has, the only card he has to play is, you know, we being in the United States, can lift the blockade and get.

get oil flowing from the strait ore moves if we get a deal with the iranians help us get a deal with the iranians and that i think is what they'll be focused on is um president putin uh attempting to resolve the u.s israeli war with iran or restrain uh trump and netan yah who both well i think by restraining us he's seeking to resolve it the the the goal here is to to bring it into the fighting, but also to create conditions for normalcy in the global energy markets, which is something Russia very much desires. All these people, you know, Russia's raking in the money and all this stuff. Yeah, but Russia likes predictability.

They like stability, and they need predictability and stability in the global energy market. So they also need the United States to not just stop waging war. in Iran, but also stop waging or stop facilitating the waging of conflict in Ukraine. Will, do the Russians and the Chinese understand how bereft of military, effective military hardware and ammunition the United States is, do the Iranians understand it? Well, I think everybody understands it. Why do you think the Iranians is just saying, go to hell? And the Russians aren't afraid of anything right now.

not even afraid of nuclear weapons. This is where everybody needs to become very concerned right now. You know, as the United States weakens its hold on Europe, you have European powers trying to say, recognizing that maybe that American nuclear umbrella isn't as good as it used to be or may not even exist. I was trying to step up to the plate nuclear wise. You have the, the French talk about deploying nuclear weapons and nuclear fighters capable of delivering it to Finland, right, on the Russian board. You have Germany talking about joint nuclear sharing with the British and the French. You have the British and French coming up with their own nuclear doctrine. And the result is you have Dimitri Medvedev, the former president, current deputy secretary

of the National Security Council of Russia, you know, basically warning the Germans, because the Germans are also saying maybe we should get nuclear weapons. And he says the outcome here will be the total destruction of Germany. will wipe you off the map. You have Sergei Kargana, who's a very influential advisor to Vladimir Putin, talking about not just holding Europe to account, but the need for preemptive use of nuclear weapons against Europe. He says that basically at this point in time, Europe is such a fundamentally diseased continent that Russia needs to eradicate them, preempt them, destroy them, that there's nothing left of value in Europe. And so Europe should be eliminated before it can threaten

Russia. And when he says eliminate, he means with nuclear weapons. You know, we're in a very dangerous state of play here in the United States could use its leadership to help calm things down. Wow. I know you have to go, Scotty, but I deeply appreciate your analysis today, particularly when it's loud enough and forceful enough to get a response from Maverick. But thank you, Scott. Okay. All the best. We'll see you again soon. Thank you. Coming up on all of this, particularly the economic aspects of it at 3.30 this afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Judge Nipaldana for Judging Freedom.