- 6/11/2025
In this urgent Forbidden News report ๐ฐโ ๏ธ, Colonel Douglas Macgregor, former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense, breaks down the rising tensions between the U.S. and Iran ๐บ๐ธ๐ฎ๐ท. Are we on the brink of another war in the Middle East? ๐๏ธ๐ฅ Hear exclusive insights on military strategies, political motives, and the global consequences of a possible conflict ๐๏ธ๐. The mainstream media wonโt cover these truths โ stay informed, stay alert ๐จ๐ง . #DouglasMacgregor #ForbiddenNews #USIranTensions #MiddleEastCrisis #WarWithIran #MilitaryAnalysis #DeepStateExposed #Geopolitics #UncensoredNews #TruthMatters #DefenseIntel #IranNews #WarAgenda #GlobalConflict #PoliticalCorruption #WakeUpAmerica #RealNews #WesternMedia #HiddenTruth #PeaceOrWar
Category
๐
NewsTranscript
00:00Transcription by CastingWords
00:30Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
00:36Today is Wednesday, June 11th, 2025.
00:39Colonel Douglas McGregor will be here in a moment.
00:42Just how close is the United States with war against Iran?
00:50But first this.
00:51While the markets are giving us whiplash, have you seen the price of gold?
00:55It's soaring.
00:56In the past 12 months, gold has risen to more than $3,000 an ounce.
01:01I'm so glad I bought my gold.
01:03It's not too late for you to buy yours.
01:06The same experts that predicted gold at $3,200 an ounce
01:10now predict gold at $4,500 or more in the next year.
01:16What's driving the price higher?
01:18Paper currencies.
01:20All around the world, they are falling in value.
01:24Big money is in panic as falling currencies shrink the value of their paper wealth.
01:31That's why big banks and billionaires are buying gold in record amounts.
01:36As long as paper money keeps falling, they'll keep buying and gold will keep rising.
01:41So do what I did.
01:43Call my friends at Lear Capital.
01:45You'll have a great conversation and they'll send you very helpful information.
01:50Learn how you can store gold in your IRA tax and penalty free or have it sent directly to your doorstep.
01:59There's zero pressure to buy and you have a 100% risk-free purchase guarantee.
02:05It's time to see if gold is right for you.
02:08Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you.
02:20Colonel, welcome here, my dear friend, and thank you very much for joining us.
02:26I have lost my audio of you, but I know you're out there somewhere.
02:30Colonel, are you satisfied, before we get to how close is the United States with war against Iran,
02:39are you satisfied with the denials of President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth
02:45that the U.S. did not know about the Ukrainian drone attack before it started?
02:51Well, I think that it's possible that President Trump did not understand what the attack was all about.
03:00But as far as Hegseth is concerned, no, I don't believe anything the man says.
03:05But I think President Trump may not have been adequately briefed.
03:09And even if he received a briefing, he may not have been told what the implications were for the attack.
03:15I mean, very few people today ever bring up the strategic arms limitations talks.
03:21And they forget that we continue to observe these agreements that we made with the Soviet Union.
03:27Now, some of them we've bailed out of, but we have not bailed out of the assault talks.
03:32So I think President Trump may be telling the truth, but I don't think Secretary Hegseth is.
03:39By the way, Secretary Hegseth made some sort of comment that he watched it all in real time, Judge.
03:44Who said that?
03:46Here is the comment, as inexplicable as it is, Colonel.
03:51It is clear that he's denying.
03:54Oh, Chris, I hear feedback on myself.
03:56I don't know why.
03:57It is clear that he's denying that he knew about it ahead of time.
04:01It is unclear if he's talking about watching this drone attack or all drone attacks.
04:06Chris, cut number 10.
04:07Are we seeing the ushering in of a new era of warfare?
04:14The use of drones from afar?
04:16After all, these drones were smuggled into Russia, hidden for a great span of time, and then activated from 2,500 miles away.
04:30Are we prepared, both defensively and offensively?
04:39It was a daring and very effective operation that we were not aware of in advance and reflects significant advancements in drone warfare, which we are tracking in real time inside Ukraine.
04:53What do you think?
04:56I think the man is not being entirely truthful.
05:02I think he knew it was coming.
05:03He may not have known all the details, but he knew the essential features of it.
05:08And, you know, this question of has this new in warfare, it's so frustrating when you deal with both general officers as well as people that know nothing about the military.
05:20They have a very static view of warfare.
05:22Warfare is always changing.
05:24It's never the same.
05:25You know, Eisen, I guess it was Einstein that was once approached by one of his students or, you know, assistants and said, you know, Professor, you asked the same set of questions on the most recent test that you did a year ago in the same class.
05:41And he said, why did you do that?
05:44What's changed?
05:46And Einstein allegedly said, well, the answers have changed.
05:49And I think that's that's the problem that we have with everybody on military affairs, the military battlefield.
05:57The environment is always changing.
05:58But I think Hagseth undoubtedly was aware that this was happening.
06:02Maybe he didn't understand the implications.
06:05I don't think Hagseth knows anything about the strategic arms limitation talks.
06:10I'd be surprised if he did.
06:13Why were the Russian planes out in the open?
06:17So that our satellites can monitor them and we can detect whether or not they are actually carrying nuclear weapons.
06:26We know where the weapons are stored in proximity to the airfields so we can see the bunkers where the weapons are stored.
06:33And we can also detect emissions.
06:36This is done on both sides.
06:38We do the same thing in the Midwest and all over the place because we want the Russians to know that we're not planning to nuke them.
06:46I mean, that's what it boils down to.
06:51Does the United States monitor this in real time?
06:55Yes.
06:56Or as our satellite passes, we have a schedule and we know when the satellites are going over.
07:02They know when our satellites are looking.
07:04So they're purposely on display so that there is no question in anyone's mind about where are they?
07:10Are they loaded for bear?
07:12Are they going into action?
07:13Are they not?
07:14All of these things have to be made clear.
07:16And this is the beauty of the overhead surveillance and space-based surveillance.
07:22We can monitor all of these things.
07:24Now, if the Russians had suddenly stopped displaying these aircraft and they disappeared into the ether, that would be a violation of the treaties.
07:33But they've never done that.
07:35We've never done that.
07:39So, Colonel, my apologies.
07:41I'm now back with you.
07:42We had a little bit of an issue.
07:45Isn't it crazy for him to say we didn't know about this and yet we monitored it in real time?
07:50Yeah, I think so.
07:51I think we should have been more honest.
07:53But the honest answer from him, I think, would probably have been, yeah, we knew about it.
08:00We didn't understand the implications.
08:02And therefore, I made a mistake.
08:05No one in power wants to admit that.
08:07So the default position is, I'm sorry, I didn't know.
08:10I have no recollection of that senator.
08:12You know, that kind of thing.
08:14Here's Foreign Minister Lavrov.
08:18I'm going to ask you what you think the Kremlin thinks.
08:20But here's what he says the Kremlin thinks.
08:23100% the British and probably the Americans.
08:26Chris, cut number eight.
08:27It is obvious that the Ukrainian side is doing everything possible.
08:32But it would be absolutely helpless without the support.
08:36I was tempted to say Anglo-Saxons, but probably without Saxons.
08:40Just without the support of the British.
08:43Although you never know, probably by inertia,
08:46some US special forces would be involved in that.
08:51But the British actually are behind all those things.
08:56I'm 100% sure.
08:57So Ritter says that means that he has intel demonstrating the certainty of what he's said.
09:06Our friend Professor Doctorow says this is an attempt to mislead.
09:09The British had nothing to do with it.
09:11Well, perhaps Professor Doctorow has access to intelligence that the rest of us do not.
09:18I don't know.
09:20Frankly, I'm not privileged to read the intelligence feeds that come out every morning
09:25that the president and everybody else at the top of the administration gets to look at if they pay attention.
09:29What I would say is this, that the British frequently in the SAS as an arm of MI6 has done things that we would not do.
09:41We said, no, we can't do that.
09:43We can't expose ourselves.
09:44So the British have stepped up and said, we'll do it.
09:46We know the SAS pulled off a number of actions against the Russians almost from the beginning of the war,
09:53several times in different places.
09:55We've had action from the sea in the Black Sea against Russian targets.
10:01So I think it's reasonable to assume that the British had a role in this.
10:04And of course, they're there by far the most vocal advocates for direct confrontation with the Russians.
10:09Now, as far as we're concerned, we have tried to be more careful about exposing ourselves,
10:17particularly our own special ops on the ground.
10:19So I think that's unlikely that we had any Americans involved.
10:23On the other hand, again, we have by far the leading array of surveillance, intelligence,
10:31collection assets in space, in the world.
10:35And that array doesn't miss much.
10:37And so I'm sure that we monitored all of this and tracked it as it was developing in real time,
10:42as Secretary Hanks has said.
10:46Would President Putin be within the law to retaliate against Great Britain?
10:56Well, I suppose you can make that argument.
11:00I think President Putin, once again, as we've discussed before,
11:03has always tried to do everything in his power not to provoke the United States and NATO into attacking him.
11:11He doesn't want a war.
11:13Right.
11:13And I think that will continue.
11:15Now, could he do something?
11:16Well, there are a number of things that he could do.
11:18The question that he has to ask is, how does that help his war effort?
11:23Does it make any real difference?
11:24I think he'll probably conclude it wouldn't make any real difference.
11:27And if you look at the state of affairs in Great Britain right now, as his professor, David Betts, recently outlined,
11:33it's pretty close to internal revolution.
11:36So, again, if you're President Putin, why would you want to interrupt that?
11:40Right, right.
11:41Let your enemy destroy himself.
11:43Colonel, who controls American foreign policy?
11:49Oh, boy.
11:50I think that we have, you know, first of all, these words, the deep state, always bother me.
11:57Because people say, well, that's the bureaucracy.
11:59Well, my own experience with the so-called federal bureaucracy, in whatever form you want to approach it,
12:06military, intelligence, or anything else, is certainly in the grip of a lot of inertia.
12:10In other words, to give you a quick example, after 92, when it became abundantly clear that the Soviet Union was crumbling
12:19and there was no threat whatsoever from the Soviet side against the West, we continued to do the things,
12:26we continued to observe the things, track the things, watch the things that we had done for 30, 40 years during the Cold War.
12:33In other words, nothing really changed.
12:34So, in that sense, I think you've got a bureaucracy that's very, very resistant to changing, to adopt a new position or new perspectives.
12:44But when you say who actually controls foreign policy, I think today we have to say clearly,
12:50oligarchic billionaires who are mega donors, who have effectively bought the hill.
12:56And when I say bought the hill, I mean buy it, through contributions.
13:02And they've also made it clear, if you look at the four stars that are out there that have retired,
13:06those who have been most vocal in their advocacy for conflict and confrontation with the Russians, with the Chinese, with Iran,
13:15they are very wealthy men, because they have been hired into firms in New York City, financial firms that reward them for their continued commitment to conflict overseas.
13:28And you also have people that are employed in various so-called think tanks, which is kind of an oxymoron.
13:36I think they're just advocacy tanks, which is, I think, what Chaz Freeman likes to call them.
13:41So, I think you have to look at the sources of the money, and people say AIPAC.
13:47Well, AIPAC is not involved in everything, but it's involved in a lot.
13:51But it is focused really like a laser on what they think is the international Jewish interest,
13:58not just Israel, but the larger diasporas interest.
14:02So, it would be wrong to say that they control foreign policy, but they have a huge impact.
14:07And there are others with a lot of money in Washington, D.C. that have an impact as well.
14:12So, is the likely...
14:13I don't think the President of the United States is a free agent.
14:18Is it a likely scenario that elements of the CIA knew about this, the Director did not,
14:24the Director of National Intelligence did not, the Secretary of Defense probably did,
14:29and nobody told the President of the United States?
14:31You know, I can't speak for Tulsi Gabbard.
14:35I don't know what she's aware of as the Director of National Intelligence,
14:39because she has a lot on her plate, so to say.
14:44But clearly, Radcliffe would have known everything, I would suspect, from the beginning.
14:49And I don't know who briefs the President.
14:51You'll recall that when President Trump was in office the first time around,
14:56and Mr. Pompeo was appointed to head the CIA, he personally came across to the White House
15:02every morning to brief President Trump.
15:05And he did that for various reasons.
15:07Obviously, he was cultivating him because he wanted to exploit Trump for as much as he could get out of him
15:12on his road to the presidency, or at least at the time, so he thought.
15:17But I would think that the CIA Director very definitely was aware.
15:21I would think that the National Security Advisor, whoever that is, would be aware.
15:25And I guess at this point, that's Marco Rubio.
15:28So if Marco Rubio is actually involved in doing the job on the National Security Council staff,
15:34he would have known.
15:37Do you think that President Putin, and then I want to jump to Israel and Iran,
15:42do you think President Putin will respond to all of this with drama and ferocity,
15:49or do you think he'll continue his slow, patient, methodical, winning ways?
15:57You know, this is a very important question because conditions have changed.
16:02The Ukrainian military establishment is in ruins.
16:06It doesn't present much resistance any longer.
16:10Tens and thousands of Ukrainian troops are being slaughtered every week
16:14as they try to withdraw, disengage, and avoid contact with the Russians.
16:19There are undoubtedly discussions right now at the highest levels in Moscow
16:23between President Putin, his advisors, and I would think the general staff.
16:28And I think the tenure of the discussion is as follows.
16:32Do we continue on our current path or do we strike decisively?
16:36And when I mean strike, I'm not talking about missiles and rockets
16:39because I think it should have become pretty clear at this point
16:43that regardless of how many missiles you launch, how many rockets are launched,
16:48and how many critical infrastructure targets are destroyed or people may be killed,
16:54that's not going to end the war because Mr. Zelensky will sit quietly in his bunker in Kiev.
17:01He'll collect whatever cash is sent his way.
17:04He'll do whatever he can to maintain the fiction that Ukraine is a real nation state,
17:09which I don't think it is anymore, and that he is in control of something,
17:14when in reality he controls Kiev and he controls some of the weapon systems
17:18that can reach into Russia but not too much else.
17:22So I think the question is what do we do?
17:24Do we keep doing what we're doing or do we move into Kiev and take the city?
17:28Do we cross the river, go down to Odessa, turn Ukraine's rump state
17:35into a landlocked state, which is important because most of the arms
17:41and support that comes to Ukraine, perhaps most is a strong word,
17:45but an awful lot of it comes from the sea, from the Black Sea.
17:49And then finally he's already made a decision to send 10,000 more Russian troops
17:53to Moldova, to the Transnistrian Republic, which is Russian,
17:59in the southern and eastern part of Moldova.
18:03Well, that's a stone's throw from Odessa.
18:06So if he's going to do that, he might as well just take Odessa.
18:10He's not going to get an agreement out of anybody.
18:12Nobody's going to sign up for anything right now.
18:14So why sit quietly and hurl missiles at Ukraine when Ukraine is already defeated?
18:21I think that's the discussion that's going on.
18:24I'd be surprised if there were any other kind of discussion.
18:28Is the United States preparing for war against Iran as we speak?
18:35Well, if you listen to General Carrillo's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee,
18:42I think that's what it was.
18:44He went to great lengths to assure everyone that we are, in fact, prepared for war with Iran
18:50and that he has presented a number of options.
18:53He didn't go into any detail.
18:55And he conveyed the impression that, you know, he's ready and willing to fight.
19:01Now, that could just be for the AIPAC audience because he wants to end up like Generals Keene
19:09or Petraeus as millionaires in firms in New York City.
19:14And the way to do that is to swear allegiance publicly to AIPAC.
19:19And that means you go to places like the, you know, Institute for the Defense of Democracy
19:24and tell everybody how much you love Israel and how you're ready to fight Iran forever.
19:29That's what General McKenzie did.
19:31And everybody that wants to be a four-star, wants to be rewarded, wants to grow rich, does that.
19:36Now, that could be it.
19:37But I think we have to take what he says very seriously.
19:41And I think we are ready to do whatever is required in terms of support for Israel if that war should break out.
19:49Here is Congressman Mike Rogers, an arch neocon, and General Michael Carrilla in the conversation of which you just spoke.
20:00Cut number 11, Chris.
20:02President Trump's made it clear that if Iran doesn't permanently give up its nuclear enrichment military force by the U.S., may be necessary.
20:10If the president directed, is CENTCOM prepared to respond with overwhelming force to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran?
20:19I have provided the Secretary of Defense and the president a wide range of options.
20:23I take that as a yes.
20:24Yes.
20:25There you have it, whatever his motivation may be, whether it's personal or ideological.
20:35Hasn't the administration gone back and forth, back and forth on all this?
20:39We read in Haaretz that President Trump said to Netanyahu, back off, don't even consider attacking Iran.
20:49We read in Haaretz that President Trump was going to allow the same level of enrichment as the original agreement did, the one that he withdrew from in his first term.
21:00Do you have a handle on where all of that sits now, Colonel?
21:04If you listen to the Iranians, one of their chief negotiators made the following statement.
21:12He said, you can have the agreement effectively as stipulated.
21:17I think it was a maximum of what, 3.2% or 3.5% enrichment for purely civilian interests or civilian purposes.
21:26And he said, but as soon as we arrive at any sort of agreement, the administration suffers from what he called the Bibi effect.
21:36In other words, a call from Netanyahu comes in and says, unacceptable, no enrichment.
21:41Then suddenly, President Trump comes up online and says, no enrichment.
21:46And the entire agreement is scrapped.
21:48So I think he's right about the Bibi effect.
21:52And the Bibi effect is very real.
21:54And of course, Senator Rogers, no doubt, is 100% in favor of the Bibi effect.
22:01So under those circumstances, I think we have to conclude that we're not going to get an agreement with the Iranians, period.
22:09So if there's not going to be an agreement, the next question is, what happens?
22:12Well, that's you and I have talked about this before.
22:15We both know that President Trump does not want a war with Iran.
22:19In fact, President Trump doesn't want a war with anybody.
22:22That's pretty clear to me.
22:23That was clear to me in 2020.
22:25That's one of the reasons I voted for the man.
22:28But does that make a difference?
22:30And you're back to your other question.
22:32Then who's really controlling things?
22:34And my personal opinion is that the potential for the Israelis to do something on their own that then requires us to intervene in support of them on the assumption that if we don't, they are at real risk of being destroyed themselves is real.
22:51That could happen.
22:53And I think that is still the most likely scenario.
22:55The idea that we're all going to get together and midnight on Friday attack Iran is nonsense.
23:01That's not the way it'll go down.
23:03I think something is much more likely to happen as a consequence of Israeli action or planning.
23:09And then we are dragged in.
23:11Here's former Ambassador Kurt Volker two days ago on this very topic.
23:18Chris, cut number seven.
23:19At what point does Israel do something about it?
23:22Well, I think we're getting closer and closer to that day.
23:26But now they're seeing the negotiation going on between the U.S. and Iran, including reportedly a proposal that Iran would be able to continue enriching uranium.
23:39Well, that's a nonstarter for Israel.
23:40And I think for good reason.
23:43And if that remains part of what we're negotiating, if that becomes agreed, I think Israel will want to step in with its own capabilities.
23:50Does the Donald Trump, for whom you voted, have the courage to say to Netanyahu, go take a hike.
23:57We're agreeing to 3.2 enrichment.
24:00They have the right to use nuclear power to heat their homes and to run the sophisticated equipment in hospitals that everybody uses today.
24:10The answer to that one is, I think, no.
24:14Now, President Trump was taken aback somewhat when he discovered that the Russians are negotiating for a contract that would result in the building of several nuclear power stations on the ground in Iran.
24:27And the Russians have been very upfront about that.
24:30I think that was actually mentioned by President Putin to President Trump.
24:34So then the question is, if that's true, and I think it is, and you are Netanyahu, you are approaching the 11th hour.
24:44Either you strike or you'll end up in a position where you can't possibly have an impact anymore.
24:51The question for President Trump is, can he stay out of it?
24:54And I don't think he can.
24:55You know, it's interesting when I talk to people about Iran, one of the things that I hear when I talk to people on the Hill or others who call themselves analysts in the field, it's as though nothing has changed in 46 years since the Iranian Revolution.
25:12Well, Judge, you and I know that's not true.
25:13Iran is a very different country today from what it was 46 years ago.
25:17Right.
25:18And it is not what it is depicted as being, as this dangerous revolutionary force.
25:24I remember people comparing the regime in Iran at the time of the revolution to the Bolsheviks in Moscow.
25:32And the Bolsheviks, of course, immediately struck out to enlarge their control of everything they could.
25:39They marched into Poland.
25:40Their goal was to march to Germany.
25:42They had to reconquer vast areas in, you know, Central Asia.
25:47And so people said, look, they're going to be like the Bolsheviks.
25:50We have to stop them dead in their tracks.
25:52Well, that was not true.
25:53Eventually, Saddam Hussein started a war with them.
25:58We subsidized him.
25:59We supported him.
26:00That war went very, very badly.
26:02And Iran emerged from it.
26:05Stronger, I would argue, than it was when it went in.
26:08In Iran today is not a nation of religious fanatics.
26:11And nobody over there is anxious to kill Jews, contrary to what everybody in Israel thinks.
26:17In fact, on the contrary, I would say that, if anything, the Iranians are singularly disinterested in this ongoing spat between Israel and its neighbors.
26:29But it's unavoidably dragged in when its co-religionists, such as the Shiites in southern Lebanon, become targets.
26:36So the bottom line is, no, I think I'm quite certain that President Trump doesn't want it.
26:43The question is, can he really prevent it?
26:46How much does he control?
26:48How many people on the Hill can he count on?
26:51In other words, it's back to the question of sit down with me, J.D., and let's go through the roster of senators.
26:56How many senators do I control?
26:59How many senators does B.B. Netanyahu control?
27:03And right now, I would argue that Mr. Netanyahu has greater influence and greater control over the Senate than President Trump does.
27:10Here's the president on Monday talking about enrichment.
27:16Yet again, cut number 12.
27:18What's the main impediment to getting a deal?
27:21Well, they're just asking for things that you can't do.
27:23They don't want to give up what they have to give up.
27:27You know what that is.
27:29They seek enrichment.
27:31We can't have enrichment.
27:34We want just the opposite.
27:36And so far, they're not there.
27:40I hate to say that because the alternative is a very, very dire one.
27:46But they're not there.
27:47They have given us their thoughts on the deal.
27:51And I said, you know, it's just not acceptable.
27:53I guess he had just gotten off the phone with Netanyahu.
28:01I don't want to be cynical, but the administration's chief negotiator, who led all of us to believe he had a deal when enrichment was around 3.2, Steve Whitcoff, A, has disappeared from the scene,
28:15and B, has made statements diametrically opposed to what the president just said.
28:21Well, I can't evaluate Whitcoff.
28:27You know, he's in a strange position.
28:29He's not really a diplomat.
28:31He's not formally a member of the administration.
28:34He's a close personal friend.
28:36And I think he's done for his friend all that he can do.
28:39And I think he's probably said that.
28:40So we're at an impasse.
28:42That's the point.
28:44And how do you get out of the impasse?
28:46I think that Mr. Netanyahu wants the strikes to go forward against Iran.
28:52And I think he's prepared to do that.
28:54And, again, under the circumstances, I don't think we would lead it.
28:57But I think we could easily be dragged in to support it and ultimately into a war with Iran and potentially a lot of other people that we don't want to go to war with.
29:06Now, you know, this business of what's acceptable and what isn't.
29:10You know, if you are going to buy the Israeli argument that Iran is what it was 46 years ago, and if they're given a weapon, they're immediately going to nuke everybody in sight,
29:20well, then you have to do anything and everything to stop that.
29:24But if you see Iran very differently, as it is, as opposed to what the Israelis say it is,
29:29then the possibility that Iran is enriching uranium for civilian use should not be threatening to anybody.
29:38I mean, where do you draw the line?
29:40Did we immediately draw the line on India and Pakistan?
29:44And to be perfectly blunt, Judge, I think if you look at Pakistan,
29:49you can make an argument that that place is a lot less stable and predictable than Iran, a hell of a lot.
29:54Nobody ever brings it up.
29:56Doesn't seem to matter.
29:57And I think we're back to the bottom line, which is Israel wants a monopoly of control over nuclear weapons.
30:04If it doesn't have that monopoly, that means it actually has to talk to, negotiate with, and get along with its neighbors.
30:11It doesn't want to do that.
30:14It wants the upper hand.
30:15It wants to hold that whip hand in perpetuity against everyone in the region.
30:22And if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, that breaks the impasse.
30:26That changes in their minds strategically what they can do.
30:30Their freedom of action is now constrained.
30:32By the way, Judge, our freedom of action was constrained as soon as the Soviets managed to explode a nuclear weapon.
30:38You remember that very, very clearly.
30:41As soon as they had a weapon, suddenly the world changed.
30:45And we've lived with that ever since.
30:48And China is another one.
30:49Remember, Brezhnev actually proposed to Richard Nixon a joint nuclear strike on China's nuclear facilities.
30:57We must not allow these Chinese to have a nuclear weapon.
31:00But, you know, Nixon wisely said, no, we're not launching an unprovoked strike against China under any circumstances.
31:10So, I think Nixon was right.
31:14And I think that right now, Trump knows that this is not something we want to do.
31:19But I'm not sure he can stop it.
31:22So, wouldn't a serious nuclear arsenal in the hands of the Iran government be the best thing for stability in the Middle East?
31:33I don't know.
31:34I mean, that's a question that has to be answered.
31:37But I do think there's an alternative that has been considered in the past that has been outright rejected by the Israelis.
31:44And that is to make the entire region nuclear-free.
31:47And everybody in the region would sign up for it except the Israelis.
31:53And that would have been the best solution.
31:56You know, to the extent we can make vast areas of the planet nuclear-free, we ought to try and do it.
32:01Right.
32:01Just as you and I have talked about this before, I'm an advocate for a no-first-use doctrine.
32:07Unambiguous, straightforward.
32:09President Trump should state it publicly.
32:11He and President Putin and President Xi should get together and say no first strike.
32:18We oppose that.
32:19There will be no first use by our countries under any circumstance.
32:23I think that would be very good for the world.
32:25But I don't see it happening.
32:27Do you?
32:28The Israelis will never agree to it.
32:31No.
32:32No.
32:33Colonel, thank you very much.
32:34Thanks for letting me go all across the board here.
32:38Very, very fascinating conversation.
32:40Sorry about those little internet blips when we first started, but we recovered.
32:45Thank you for your time.
32:46We look forward to seeing you again next week.
32:48Okay, Judge.
32:50Bye-bye.
32:50Sure.
32:51And coming up at 3 o'clock today, Daniel McAdams from the Ron Paul Institute.
32:56Do we still have a constitution?
32:59And Ian Proud at 4 o'clock, the former British diplomat.
33:03Just what is the British government up to?
33:06Judge the Palitano for Judging Freedom.
33:10We'll see you again next week.
Recommended
21:34