Alastair Crooke : Fear as a Deterrent to War

Added: 2026-05-28

[00:00:03]Undeclared wars are commonplace.

[00:00:06]Tragically, 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.

[00:00:19]To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected.

[00:00:27]What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government? What if Jefferson was right?

[00:00:34]What if that government is best which governs least?

[00:00:38]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?

[00:01:02]Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Npalitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, May 26, 2026. It seems like a Monday because we in the US were off yesterday. Alistister Crook will be here with us in just a moment. Is fear fear of nuclear weapons a legitimate and effective deterrent to war? But first, this. Don't you just cringe when people say, "I told you so.

[00:01:30]Sorry. I told you gold and silver would reap the benefits due to excessive money printing, inflation, and global uncertainty. It's here. It's happened.

[00:01:41]Gold and silver have reached all-time highs. Did you call Lear Capital and buy some? It's not too late. Experts are predicting higher prices ahead. Why?

[00:01:51]Nothing has changed. Geopolitical chaos, cost of living crisis, and a weaker dollar are driving central banks to boost their gold reserves. Forecasts suggest gold could hit $6,000 an ounce and silver $200 an ounce. Even Morgan Stanley ditched the 6040 rule for 60 2020, putting 20% into precious metals.

[00:02:16]They're getting educated and you should too. Call the best in the business and the people I trust, Lear Capital. Get the reports, get the facts, get some gold and silver. Tell them the judge sent you and get up to $20,000 in bonus gold or silver. Call 8005114620 or go to leerjudgenap.com.

[00:02:38]House dair welcome here uh my dear friend and thank you as always uh for your time. Before we get to the possession or even the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrence, did the United States just bomb Iran last night in self-defense? It claimed >> Yes, it did. Well, it was uh not last night, yesterday, I think it was. Um but um US forces uh um these are that's US aircraft uh attacked uh two IRGC one one of those small patrol boats those high-speed patrol boats uh killing four Iranian military personnel in those the the boats were actually off Bandabas.

[00:03:29]Now, Bandrabas lies on the Iranian coastline exactly north of the eastern tip of Kashm Island. It is literally between Kesham Island and Iran and Bandarabas is a major port, a huge port, container port and everything. Uh therefore for Iran.

[00:03:52]So if if two speedboats were off there, the American authorities say they might have been laying mines. It would be a strange place to lay mines because it's right out of the shipping route north of Kashm is not either on the Iranian shipping passage, nor is it on the mainstream shipping passage. Anyway, they have been um they were attacked, destroyed um and as a consequence of that um then um Iranian forces fired some anti-ship missiles targeting US vessels in in response. Um and then Iranian air defenses shot down at least one, some reports say three US drones operating in the area.

[00:04:44]Then the United States then retaliated again, striking Iranian launch sites for anti-hship missiles, an air defense system. Iran then responded again, firing multiple anti-hship missiles at US vessels. Uh the point of this I'm just getting is the significance is that the exchange now has moved from a single through um a single attack to multiple rounds of attack and counterattack within a 24-hour period. Um and this is much harder to contain. And of course now we've had the Iranians saying um they will react to this breach of the ceasefire. And I would say that it is clearly a breach of ceasefire. And this is one of two breaches of the ceasefire because this is one. And then the other one is that Netanyahu has pledged to increase the attacks into Lebanon, attacking Beirut and attacking ordered a major town in um Lebanon to be um to be vacated so that it can be attacked. um uh by uh Israeli forces. So major the many attacks going on in Lebanon, many people are being killed. It's said to be that they are attacking Hezbollah, but um the widespread nature of the attacks on civilian areas is quite quite evident. So these are two two areas where the ceasefire is de facto failing.

[00:06:27]>> Wow. all of this while the uh Iranian negotiators are meeting with the Pakistani mediators in Doha.

[00:06:38]Um well they're meeting I think in um in in in I don't know where they're meeting but they've certainly the Israeli two of them have been um to Gata um to talk to the gataries because one of the conditions um for um the ceasefire to start to begin is the Iranians have demanded a return of their frozen assets. Well, this isn't about returning them all, but the Iranians have said, well, to start with, you'd have to um unfreeze at least half, which would be 12 billion dollars um which um is held at um American um if you like order in ga. So the gutteries are saying, well, we'll lend you the 12 billion until finally America releases the 12 billion to us uh and we can recover it that way. So all of this is very tentative at the moment.

[00:07:51]>> Probably ask is there is there a deal?

[00:07:55]It's hardly clear whether there's a deal or not at at this point in in terms of Hormuz. I mean the Iranians are firm on the position they control together with Oman and the new authority that they have created um the control the passage uh through um the Hormuz. Uh this is not something new. They don't say we're not we're going to charge tolls. They say we're going to charge fees rather like a vessel passing through the Bosphorus has to pay to the Turkish authorities there.

[00:08:37]They have to pay if you like environmental fees, safety fees and um maintenance fees to the Turkish authorities. And so Iran is proposing uh exactly the same system if you like um for the HO crossing. So they haven't changed their position on that and nor have they changed it on the nuclear issue.

[00:09:04]Um before we get to the subject at hand, Russia undertook a massive attack uh over the past two or three days using its famous or infamous archnik and other related uh instruments of war uh in Kev.

[00:09:24]Will this evoke a response from Europeans, from the European governments, a military response?

[00:09:31]>> I'm not sure. I and I don't think it should because first of all the arrik was not used against in the areas of the city. The archnik is my understanding was used at an airfield on the borders of Kiev uh which is where um it is believed military facilities are are held there. um it's maybe weapons, armaments, I don't know, but the arishnik was probably chosen for there precisely because with its multiple warheads, it is not within the strict very tight, you know, target range of the warhead being within sort of five, you know, meters square. It is a wider warhead. So it was not used there and Russia gave clear warning um to all in Kiev um 24 hours notice. Uh Lavrov gave warning and saying I advise Americans and Europeans to leave the area. They are doing this in retaliation for the attack uh on on on if you like a school. It was not a school exactly. It was a dormatory where young people um and mostly women were killed um in a number of drones attacked it.

[00:10:59]Not one, which is always possible that can be an accident, but four drones attacked it and I think 21 are dead. And for Russians as a whole, I mean, this attack on the children um there because they're young people, teenagers mostly, this attack is just as really what Lavrov suggested was the last straw.

[00:11:25]This is just un, you know, unacceptable.

[00:11:28]And so the attack is going to be on the decision makingaking um centers and the military if you like infrastructure in Kief. It's not targeted on civilians. It targeted on decision making centers. Now many of those decision m making centers presumably after the warning will have been empty but nonetheless this is a clear message and you'll rightly say it's a message to Europe as much as anything else because it is European and this is why I've talked and sent you a piece that I I wrote about nuclear weapons but nuclear weapons together with conventional weapons as a form of defense. Just to be clear, Britain alone has in April announced that it is sending 120,000 drones of which they are different sorts, FPV bones, but some longd distanceance drones, precisely the sort of drones that might be used to attack uh St. Petersburg or Moscow. And as you probably very much aware, you know, we had the 9th of uh the 9th of June, the um remembrance day um where there was a threat of disruption by drones, which was stopped by a call by Trump to Zilinski saying, "Don't do it." But we've got the St. Petersburg forum coming up um shortly. And so I think this is again a very clear message to the Europeans and those who supply these longd distance drones that this is not acceptable and they we have there is now a very clear red line.

[00:13:35]>> Is Putin I'll use an American uh phrase.

[00:13:38]Is Putin now taking the gloves off?

[00:13:41]>> Yep. That's right. Putin is and um and uh do you and it'll be probably more. I mentioned that uh um Sergey Karaganov had written this quite important paper.

[00:13:57]It's important because it's substantive.

[00:14:00]It explains the background to what he's saying very clearly. And it's important because it directly impinges on on on on Europeans who I I I describe it as this.

[00:14:12]They are giving we sto slowly slowly they increase the attacks. First of all they are drones then they are longer range missiles and so on. It's a sort of a ratchet up of attacks that are supposed to make Russia feel anxious, Russians to feel, well, you know, this war isn't going so well. And so they are increasing um these attacks both in number and on the targets um that are there. And so, uh, Karaganov is saying in this paper, um, that the Europeans are really trying to what, and this is my language, is trying to boil the Russian frog slowly, slowly, incrementally, um, increase the pace of missile attacks deep inside Russia. Nothing to do with the sort of Ukraine conflict, but to St. Petersburg at Moscow and they're deliberately doing it um to unsettle um the political um climate there. Uh and this is what Caraganov has said clearly uh our deterrence is no longer there. It doesn't it's not working clearly because the Europeans just go up and up and they are slowly you know the metaphor that you turn put a frog in a in a pan of water you turn up the heat and nothing happens and it gets hotter and hotter and if the frog doesn't jump out of the pan then it gets boiled and has died.

[00:15:54]And uh what we're seeing now and you described it uh as the gloves come off.

[00:16:00]Well, the frog has jumped out of the pan. That is Putin is jumping out of the pan. He's not going to be, if you like, boiled alive by the Europeans who are desperate to try and pull um the United States into war by France, by Britain, Germany sending their if you like their stocks, I say so many I mean this was just in April announced 120,000 drones from Britain going on going to to Ukraine to fire into um into Russia and to kill Russians. Well, I mean, he's he's saying uh enough's enough. Last straw. And that's why he told them to get out of Kiev. And they and before um on before when he made a a warning, gave a warning before the if you like the remembrance day parade.

[00:16:59]The Russians said, "Oh, no, it's a bluff. It's a bluff. We're not leaving."

[00:17:04]Well, if they don't leave on the advice of Mr. Lavro, it's their responsibility and they must take the consequences.

[00:17:12]Things are getting tougher. And this is the point that also Karaganov made which was a very precise one. He said, "Look, we have to learn some of the lessons from the Iranian war. Look at what the Iranians have done using conventional missiles on carefully selected American assets and bases. They withdrew they withdrew from those bases and we need to do that as the first element. But at the end of it and he goes back really in the sense to to the 50s that by being by building up a military power um a nuclear power for the first time in the cold war Russia was taken seriously. There was a sense of deterrence that of course slipped away when Russia um if you like the Soviet Union imploded. Um and after that no and I hear it all the time you know and the neocons it's a con constant refrain from European and American neocons. Oh don't say that Putin is blumping. He'd never dare use it against um you certainly a NATO state. And what is so making this so acute at the moment is that the Ukrainian drones are flying through NATO airspace, Finland, Latvia, the Baltic republics and they are using Article 5 as a sort of guarantee that they can not be have any repercussions um as they use NATO um airspace in order to allow um the Ukrainian missiles to weave their way around um the Moscow and St. Petersburg air defenses. And this is why I think we're getting a very clear message. Um I can tell you that Karaggonov's um uh emphasis and his many interviews that followed it, it is now not a position that is considered outside of the of the conventional limits of discussion. It's central in the discussions that are going on on in Russia that they if they can't give a message to the Europeans that is clear um as Iranians were doing um then I mean there is a real risk of this escalating to a war because ultimately you know the frog is not prepared to be boiled alive and that's why he's jumping out of the pan before you know it gets too So the mere possession but not use of deliverable nuclear weapons is no longer a deterrent. I gather that's part of Karaganov's argument and and let me ask you as you address that to address it as well in the Iranian context. If Iran had deliverable nuclear weapons, would do you think the Americans and Israelis have attacked it?

[00:20:33]>> Um well in in a sense you know what Karaganov is saying um that uh Russia needs a nuclear deterrence as its plan B. Plan A is to develop conventional missiles, new hypersonic missiles for any confrontation with what Lavough has described as a sort of, you know, um, fanatical Europeans that have become so obsessed with attacking Russia and they've got to without an element of fear, then Russia doesn't have deterrence. So they need to have fear.

[00:21:16]And my point is actually as a European I think that Russian deterrence is a European interest because if Russia doesn't have deterrence then some of the European states who are so um extreme in their dislike of Russia may well slowly ratchet and ratchet and ratchet up until Russia has no alternative.

[00:21:46]and we are in a big war. As to your your your second question about Iran, I think this is the real paradox of our nonprololiferation policy. I mean the fact is that if you are if you like a state like Iran, you are sanctioned, you're penalized, you're excluded from everything else um on the basis that you might become a nuclear power. However, I mean it the non-prololiferation policy of penalizing and attacking states that thei the west the nuclear west thinks could become rival nuclear powers has actually produced the opposite result in Pakistan, North Korea where they understand that the only thing that the west really fears and is deters them is a nuclear weapon. This is not a good outcome. But this is what we've done. And I think you know in Europe the Europeans really need to see address this question. This is the question that is taking place in America in the Iranian context. I mean, why do you know the the the English king went to your congress and he said, you know, we need to prepare and you must join us in preparing for war on Russia is what he told Congress. presumably on a brief provided by the government and approved by Europe generally. He made this bold statement that America now just like echoes of the Second World War pulling Roosevelt into a war against um uh Russia. They want um America to join in with a war against Russia. What? Why do we want to go? Do any European want a war with Russia? Apart from a few elitists who are fanatic about it, apart from um a few Baltic Republic uh political leaders, some of whom are in the European Union maybe, but no one in their senses thinks about it. Europe doesn't have the resources, doesn't have the ma, doesn't have the finances. So, it's very clear what Charles was doing in that was really the same thing that we've seen in the past. It was saying, look, you know, Trump, well, he may be gone. He's walked away from Europe. He's walked away from Europe. He's walking away from NATO, but he'll be gone soon.

[00:24:38]And then there will be a different administration coming in. And we need America back in Europe, back into NATO.

[00:24:47]so we can pursue a war against Russia with America. That's what they're proposing. Why would America want to do that? Why would any sane European want to get involved in this? This is a a sort of a a fantastical idea that is held by a few fanatics in Europe, but not by the people. The last thing they're interested in at the stage is going to a big war. They don't have the capacity and they're not culturally adjusted to it.

[00:25:22]>> If um Iran is on its heels, meaning suffering terribly from an onslaught by the Americans and the Israelis, might their friends, the Pakistanis, use or make available to them a nuclear weapon?

[00:25:43]>> Uh we don't know. But this is this whole paradox of the uh of the proliferation policy of you know attacking states so that they may not think about having a nuclear weapon actually has the kind the opposite effect. It makes them and states like Pakistan who are allied with them think you know the only thing that matters to the west is if there is someone that does have a nuclear weapon that changes the strategic balance. So this this way of saying you know Iran mustn't ever and we're going to bomb them into obliteration to make sure they never get it. The obvious message for the rest of the world is you see the only thing that really protects you is a nuclear weapon. We don't want that. That isn't you know we shouldn't want that but that is the tenor of our of our policy at the moment actually encourages states to think about a nuclear weapon.

[00:26:52]>> Alistair thank you very much. Such a great conversation uh my dear friend and again thank you for accommodating the schedule today. Seems like a Monday but it's Tuesday and all the best. We'll see you next week.

[00:27:06]>> Thank you. Thank you judge. Bye for now.

[00:27:08]>> Byebye. A busy day coming up for you. At 9 this morning if you're watching us live in 31 minutes. Professor John Mirshimer at 10 o'clock. Ambassador Chaz Freeman at 10:30. Larry Johnson at 1 this afternoon. Scott Ritterder at 2 this afternoon. Matt Hoe at 3 this afternoon. Colonel Karen Quowski. Judge Npalitano for judging freedom.