Transcript of 'Judging Freedom,' 14 November 2024

Transcript submitted by a reader

Napolitano: 0:32
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for "Judging Freedom". Today is Thursday, November 14th, 2024. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, thank you very much for your time. It's always a pleasure to be able to chat with you.
What has the Kremlin's reaction been to the election of Donald Trump?

Generally pleased with his nominations. Until he made the nominations, they weren't saying very much. But the opinion of the people who are closest to the Kremlin, that has been made very clear. They have looked down the list. They've taken his nominations for defense, for the intelligence services, for the State Department, and they've concluded that overall his candidates are soft on Russia and hard on China. And for their purposes, that is relatively good news. Today they were speaking about Tulsi Gabbard and whom they have featured in the past for her very brave positions in foreign policy issues. And so generally they're content with what he's doing. And I think it gives them confidence that his claim to be a positive force in ending this war must be taken seriously.

Napolitano: 2:06
Do they not see problems in the uber aggressive attitude toward Iran on the part of Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth? And actually, before you get there, how could you compare Marco Rubio with Sergei Lavrov? I mean, one of them is a two-bit political hack and a neophyte. The other is the dean of world diplomats.

Doctorow:
Well, the dean of world diplomats has not had responsibility for running the state or for-- and so his administrative experience is nil. He's very good at what he does. But their competences and their life experience is different. So I don't think it's entirely fair to compare them aside from the age difference, which must be 25 or 30 years.

3:08
The Russians are generally optimistic about something good happening in this administration. Perhaps they overestimate Trump's ability to get his candidates through the Senate, an issue which just arose today when the Senate Republicans decided on who their leader would be, and it is not a Trumpite. So in that respect, they have a little note of caution today, whereas yesterday they were just smiling from ear to ear.

Napolitano: 3:45
If Israel attacks Iran and asks for the assistance of the United States, and the United States assists Israel with offensive weaponry-- I'm not talking about defensive systems to protect Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. I'm talking about American fighter jets bombing Tehran-- do you expect that Russia would sit back and do nothing, or what would Russia do?

Napolitano:
Well, I don't think Russia expects that to happen. They expect, in fact-- this was a matter of discussion, what will Trump's policy be on Israel and on Iran. I'm speaking of yesterday's most authoritative discussion programs-- and they expected that Mr. Trump could very possibly try to pull a rabbit out of a hat, and similar to what he did or tried to do in his first term with respect to North Korea. Only then he was sabotaged by Bolton and others in his suite and his entourage, whereas this time nothing like that could happen if he did make an outreach to Iran. I think the Russians aren't saying this, so I will add something to the equation.

5:07
What we're looking at, I believe, is somewhat parallel to the Nixon period. There was no way that a Democrat, a softy, and communist was going to normalize relations with Mao Zedong. It took a determined anti-communist fighter who was known to be strict and tough on those people to come and do what had to be done to establish normal relations. So I think if something similar is in prospect here, this is at least one of the thoughts that I believe underlies the Russian position or disbelief that Trump is going to wage a war on Iran.

5:56
But you ask me what would they do? Well, I think they're prepared for it. They already are putting assistance to Iran with the S-400s, the air defense systems. They possibly have a substantial number of late-generation fighter jets with or without their own pilots there. But then there are things that are going on that nobody talks about. And so I'll just throw something out here, which I don't think you've heard. We all watched yesterday when the Houthis claimed, to have attacked the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and its escort ships in the Red Sea.

6:46
And they said they used a variety, a combination of drones and hypersonic ballistic missiles. The United States, the Pentagon spokesman, acknowledged there was such an attack, and then listen to what he said. He said, "We knocked down all their drones." He didn't say they knocked down the ballistic missiles. So-- and the next thing we hear is the Abraham Lincoln is headed back to San Diego.

So I think that perhaps the Houthis did some damage to the aircraft carrier. And we can imagine, since they named the missile this Palestine II, we assume it was provided to them by Iran. But nobody is talking about something else. Who provided the targeting, the satellite information necessary to have precise targeting?

Napolitano: 7:49
Do the Houthis not have that ability on their own? Would they require Russia, Iran, some sophisticated satellite system?

Doctorow:
Well, the Houthis certainly don't have a satellite system. I'm not sure if Iran has a satellite system relevant to this particular geography. The Russians do. So I think it's more than a safe guess that the Russians are providing intelligence to this axis of resistance. So the Pentagon isn't touching this. It's really a live wire that could be very dangerous to start exposing what the Russians are doing in the Middle East in opposition to what Americans and Israelis are doing.

Napolitano: 8:33
Right, so as I understand it, Professor Doctorow, the Houthis, with the aid of the Russians, did enough damage to the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, an American aircraft carrier, that it had to get out of there and go back to the United States. And the Western press hasn't covered this.

Doctorow;
Precisely.

Napolitano:
I would push back with you a little bit-- and of course, you know far more about this than I do-- on the comfort level that you say the Pentagon has over Trump's appointees. I'm going to play you two clips. One from Netanyahu saying, "Trump and I see eye to eye on Iran." Well, that should scare the Russians or at least alert them, maybe "scare" is the wrong verb.

And the other is an on-air Fox and Friends. I can't really criticize Fox and Friends or hosts from Fox and Friends or ex-hosts from Fox and Friends since I am one myself. But it is Pete Hegseth saying "We may have to bomb Tehran." So Chris, first cut number two, Netanyahu saying "Trump and I are eye to eye", and then right into cut number five.

Netanyahu: 10:00
In the last few days, I have talked three times with President-elect Donald Trump. These were good and very important conversations designed to strengthen the covenant made between Israel and the allied countries. We see eye to eye on the Iranian threat in all its forms and the danger it poses."

Hegseth: 10:17
Sometimes you have moments, Steven, I happen to believe that we can't kick the can down the road any longer in trying to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. They use the killing of Soleimani as an excuse to say, "We're scrapping the Iran deal." We all know they were scrapping it anyway.

So what better time than now to say, we're starting the clock, you've got a week, you've got X amount of time before we start taking out your energy production facilities. We take out key infrastructure, we take out your missile sites, we take out nuclear development, We take out port capabilities. Or take out a Quds headquarters while you're at it, if you want. I understand that's not a popular idea. If we're going to fight to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, this regime, then we need to rewrite the rules that are advantageous to us. I don't want to hit cultural sites on purpose, but if you're using one to harbor your most dangerous weapons, then that should be on the target list.

Napolitano: 11:08
So instead of a sincere thinker, a strategic thinker, who would dial Trump back, you have somebody that would appeal to his most bellicose attributes in the most bellicose of ways. So we'll start with Hegseth and then go to Netanyahu. He wants to bomb Tehran infrastructure as a way of degrading Tehran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. So how far advanced are they? And Putin's not going to sit back and allow the United States to destroy highways in Tehran, is he?

Doctorow:
Look, I think we're leaving one factor out of discussion here, and that is China. Russia has its own geopolitical reasons for standing by Iran. And though those reasons were not sufficient for them to conclude and sign off on a mutual-defense pact, Russia is a little bit cautious with good reason. But who else is in play here?

China is in play here. What was just being discussed, the destruction of Iranian hydrocarbon production or refining or both is of vital interest to China. It is impossible to imagine that China would let this happen without taking some very strong steps against the United States.

Napolitano:
Military steps, Professor?

Doctorow:
Pardon?

Napolitano: 12:53
Military steps or economic steps?

Doctorow:
Both, but I think the first thing, most obvious is there would be military, It is widely assumed that in a month or two, they can take over Taiwan if they want to. The United States is not prepared to prevent that. And everybody knows that on both sides. I don't believe that Trump, is ready to take those risks, for which there's no reason.

There's wide discussion that he does not have confidence in Netanyahu. I take this, all of this discussion as setting stage for a possible accommodation with Iran. The saber rattling is a preliminary to alert the American public that they've got a really tough fighting president. And then he goes and he does what he really wants to do, which is to scale back--

Napolitano: 13:53
But remember he owes, he owes Mrs. Adelson a hundred million dollars. It's not personal debt, but that's the amount of money she gave to his campaign in return for his support of Zionist supremacy. You really think he's going to say no to Netanyahu?

Doctorow:
It depends what the risks are. If Biden, a really convinced Zionist, stood back and was not ready to give military assistance to Netanyahu for an attack on the nuclear installations or the hydrocarbon installations, then why would Trump do that?

14:39
Trump, who has come in on a platform of not starting new wars. Sounding bellicose and starting wars are not the same thing. And I have more confidence in his judgment after his appointment of Tulsi Gabbard to the post of reining in the three-letter agencies in the States. This is the most remarkable appointment. And I think there you see reason to take confidence that Trump is not a fool, not, nothing of the sort. He knows very well where his interests are and where the country's interests are. Starting a war that is highly risky with Iran is not in American interest.

Napolitano: 15:23
Help me get to the bottom of this dispute, Professor, started by the Washington Post over whether President Putin and President-elect Trump had a conversation on the phone shortly after Trump was acknowledged as the victor in the presidential election-- so maybe we're talking Thursday or Friday of last week-- during the course of which the Post reports-- now, that really means the CAA wants out there, because we know the Post is a mouthpiece for the CAA-- that President Trump said to President Putin, don't accelerate the war. I can't imagine Putin even listening to Trump saying that. Dmitry Peskov says the conversation never happened.

The Trump team won't say yes or won't say no. The Washington Post stands by its story. Can you tell us if you have sources that will clarify whether or not that conversation occurred and if it did, if Trump attempted to lecture to Putin? And if he did, what would Putin's reaction be to a lecture from Donald Trump or any other major power chief of state or about to become chief of state? I'm sorry for the long-winded question.

Doctorow: 16:44
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Peskov and to discount 100 percent the Washington Post story. But there has been so much misinformation, or disinformation, or simply propaganda, being put out by the neocons, who are in disarray and desperate to foil Trump before his inauguration takes place. The greater risk of a war now in the Middle East is from these dying days of the Biden administration. Let's remember what happened in the two months before Donald Trump took office after winning the 2016 election. Obama's people sabotaged, or did their best to sabotage relations with the Russians by illegally seizing Russian consular properties.

17:42
Now, something like that, or more drastic, is certainly being discussed in these circles of people who hate Trump. They can't assassinate him now because then it will be even worse. They'll have Vance. They can't assassinate Vance because then it will be even worse. They'll have the Speaker of the House. That means they are stuck with Trump. And the only thing they can do is try to so spoil relations with Russia that he can't proceed with his plans of reconciliation.

Napolitano: 18:17
Very interesting. What is your feel for the reaction of the EU and NATO elites to Donald Trump's election?

Doctorow:
They're in disarray. The majority of countries are pretending that nothing has happened, that they'll all get along. Like Ursula von der Leyen, "Yes, I had a great phone conversation with Donald." I give that as much credence as the remarks that Donald spoke with Putin. Yes, in this case, she probably spoke to him, but to think that it was a cordial conversation is nonsense. If Trump used a wrecking ball with Angela Merkel, I think he has no way hesitation of letting Ursula know where she stands.

19:13
Let's come back to your question. The EU is split. And I think that as the inauguration approaches and as Trump starts to put in place his plans for reducing American aid to Ukraine in exchange for Russia entering into negotiations, I think that this split in the EU will win and that power will ever wane from the authorities in Brussels under von der Leyen and will move to the group of Patriots for Europe that was created and is headed by Viktor Orban. So I expect a very big change.

So it is also within Germany itself, the deadline of the, date for the next federal elections has been set. It's February 23rd. It is widely assumed that the head of the Christian Democrats, will easily win that, although he will have, again, a minority of seats in the parliament and the Bundestag, and will have to form a coalition. But I think these estimates are premature.

Napolitano: 20:40
Great answer, Professor. I'm waiting for Viktor Orban and Donald Trump to enter that campaign by saying to the German people, the reason you're having a cold winter and the reason you're burning filthy coal and breathing in the fumes from it is because Joe Biden destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline. Just remember that when you decide who to vote for.

Doctorow:
Well, what is coming out, and this has been highlighted by this evening's news reporting on Russian television, is the willingness of parliamentarians, deputies in the European Parliament, to acknowledge that they had been silenced for the last year or two and had not been allowed to use the word negotiations or a peace settlement in Ukraine. That gag order is now effectively failing.

21:43
The ometa in the European Parliament is being pushed aside, and people are expressing from various countries their wish to see an end to this war. So it's the, what I expect is a big change in the actual election results in Germany, which is, which will be very important as an indicator of where Europe is headed. And Mr-- And the Christian Democrats may find themselves forced to accept an alliance with Sahra Wagenknecht's party, formed less than a year ago, but a party which is for peace with Russia and which is enjoying enormous support for the less than a year it exists. And I think she polls like 13 percent in the elections in the eastern German states, which held them earlier this fall. So I think she will be the kingmaker, and the new coalition will have to adjust its foreign policy to have a coalition with her.

Napolitano: 22:58
Getting back to Ukraine, can a Secretary Rubio, a National Security Advisor Waltz, and a Secretary Hegseth possibly craft an end to the Ukrainian war acceptable to President Putin, while Vladimir Zelensky is still in power or claiming to be in power, Professor Doctorow?

Doctorow:
Well, I think this will happen, but I wouldn't look just at those three, because it's more than likely that Donald Trump will appoint someone in charge of Putin.

Napolitano: 23:42
Whoever it is, my point is, will Putin agree to anything when the signature on the other end of the agreement is Zelensky's?

Doctorow:
Probably not. But I think that that issue will solve itself. If Trump wants to really play hardball, he will say that for Ukrainians to sign the document, they first have to have an election.

Napolitano:
And then Zelensky couldn't possibly win that election. He probably would be better off escaping the country under those circumstances. How much longer, Professor, before I let you go, can the Ukraine military hold out? How close to achieving its goals is the Russian military as we speak?

Doctorow: 24:39
You have to consider the priority that the Russians are giving to minimize loss of life among their soldiers. And so the caution with which they proceed, if they really wanted to end this in a couple of weeks, they could do it, but they would have significant losses as you always have when you are on the offensive side. So they are taking their time. The Ukrainians, yes, their front is crumbling, but that does not mean that they are fleeing en masse from the front lines or deserting en masse. They're not.

And the Russians are encountering resistance and fighting every day. They're advancing more in some parts of the front than others because the Ukrainians cannot hold the entire front of 1,000 kilometers uniformly.

Napolitano: 25:37
Professor Doctorow, a pleasure, my dear friend. Safe travels as you return to your home, and thank you very much for your time, as always.

Doctorow:
Well, thanks. And I promise you better lighting and better sound.

Napolitano:
We can tell it's you. And we do appreciate all your thoughts and your sonorous voice. Thank you, Professor.

Doctorow:
Thanks for having me. Bye-bye.

Napolitano:
Sure. Of course. Coming up at 2 o'clock this afternoon, Professor John Mearsheimer, and at 4 o'clock, Aaron Maté.

Please remember to like and subscribe. We are climbing ever so close to a half a million subscribers by Christmas. Help us get there, please. It helps to spread the word that you really don't get on the mainstream media.

26:29
Judge Nepolitano for "Judging Freedom".