Transcript of ‘Judging Freedom,’ 9 September 2025

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2saYUvFeCY

Napolitano: 0:34
Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for _Judging Freedom_. Today is Tuesday, September 9th, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow joins us now. Professor Doctorow, I know you’re traveling, figuratively and literally, and I appreciate very much the time you’ve given us and what you’ve gone through to make this connection so we can chat.

I do want to spend my usual time with you about attitudes in the Kremlin and events in Ukraine, but there is breaking news as we come on air this morning. And that is that the Israeli defense forces have attacked the Hamas negotiators who were about to enter a negotiating session in Qatar with their Israeli counterparts to address President Trump’s proposals to bring about a cessation of military activity in Gaza. And as they were approaching wherever this place was in Qatar, in Doha, Qatar, the IDF attacked and killed 37 of them. If these facts are accurate, is the US complicit in this murder?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 1:53
Oh yes, there’s no question. They’re tolerating all of the war crimes of Netanyahu. We don’t have to take any one of them as a spelling complicity, but the whole lot of them are results of American complicity and refusal to deny Netanyahu what he needs in materiel to carry on his crimes. So of course, as I say, any one element of their behavior is part of the big picture which the United States is supporting.

Napolitano:
Notwithstanding its wealth, or their wealth, the people that run Qatar have made it pretty much subservient to the United States. The US controls the airspace in Qatar. So if the IDF was going to either use jets or missiles to enter the airspace, they would have to know about it. Stated differently, the United States, which lured the Hamas negotiators to this negotiating site would [have had to know] that they were luring them to their deaths, because the US controls the airspace. The Israelis would need US permission to enter the airspace, and it obviously was given.

Doctorow: 3:07
It’s not a pretty picture, any which way you look at it, but it’s a subject I hope we can get into as we consider Mr. Trump in general, and what I was just discussing with one of the very well-informed European deputy of the parliament, what we can make of Trump and where are the pluses that may offset the minuses like the one you just mentioned.

Napolitano:
I believe that that was the same conversation. Is this an EU member from Germany who has past experience living in Iran? Are we talking about the same person about whom you wrote to me recently?

Doctorow:
Exactly.

Napolitano:
Can you … share with us what this person told you he believes was the communication between Washington and Tehran before Trump dropped those huge bombs on Iran in June?

Doctorow: 04:24
Yes, what he– he interprets the scenario as follows: that Trump was aware of Netanyahu’s plans to use Israeli nuclear bombs on the Iranian sites if Israel were going to act alone. And with that knowledge, Trump approached Netanyahu and said, “Just sit still; we’ll take care of it for you.”

Meaning the bombing that eventually took place. But this did not just happen. The United States was in communications with Tehran, according to my conversational partner. They were in contact with Tehran. The Iranians knew perfectly what was about to happen. And of course, their response was calibrated accordingly.

Moreover, they had every opportunity to remove personnel and critical material in the time between [when] they had been given a forewarning and the actual bombing by the United States.

Napolitano:
So was the bombing by the United States intended to make Netanyahu and company believe that the US was really trying to destroy and set back the Tehran nuclear capabilities, but to satisfy Tehran that this was just for show and give Tehran time to get their nuclear material out of the way of our bombs? Is that what this argument is?

Doctorow: 5:59
I think the chief point here was to prevent an Israeli nuclear strike. And whether or not they would actually disarm Iran, do much damage or whatever, was not the key consideration. I don’t know that this was sold to Netanyahu in that respect. It was just, “Don’t make a move; we will do it.”

And this raised the whole question of how we interpret Trump’s behavior, his major foreign policy decisions, including what we just talked about a couple minutes ago, how he is supporting the genocide in Gaza. I found this very important to find a person who is so well informed, by his present activities within the parliament and by his past experience of dealing with other high officials across Europe, and not only, but also in Iran and other countries where he was stationed for long periods of time.

7:03
I was very heartened to see that he had a similar reading to myself about the pluses and minuses of Mr. Trump and tends to believe that the pluses outweigh these awful minuses that we were just discussing.

Napolitano:
So the Qatari foreign minister has just released the following statement: “The state of Qatar strongly condemns the cowardly Israeli attack that targeted residential buildings housing several members of the political bureau of Hamas in the Qatari capital Doha. This criminal assault constitutes a blatant violation of all international laws and norms and poses a serious threat to the security and safety of Qataris and residents in Qatar. While the state of Qatar strongly condemns this assault, it confirms that it will not tolerate this reckless Israeli behavior and the ongoing disruption of regional security nor any act that targets its security and sovereignty.” Close quote.

8:07
Interestingly, no condemnation of the United States, since the Americans obviously knew about this and facilitated it.

Doctorow:
Yes, that’s clear. But you can understand that this rather small power, regional power, Qatar, would keep its mouth shut about the United States and not issue public condemnation. Suffice to say that they have roundly condemned Israel. What will come from this is another question.

It’s hard to believe that this will go unnoticed and there will be no reaction from the neighborhood or farther afield. It is utterly unbelievable the brazen nature of this act.

Napolitano: 8:52
When the US bombed Tehran, whether by knowledge and consent or whether it was a surprise, the Iranian negotiators were about to attend a negotiating session. So we have seen, if all of this is true, we have seen yet again, President Trump lure people into a negotiation only to attack the negotiators or their colleagues or their homeland at the very time that these people thought they’d be negotiating under the auspices of or directly with the United States.

Doctorow:
That may well be, but there is a “but” that I throw into this. It was not the United States that made that attack. In either case, it was Israel that did the dirty work. Whether the United States believed it was luring diplomats into negotiations only to have them killed by the Israelis, that is an open question. One can assume the worst, and I agree with your interpretation, but it isn’t necessarily what happened.

Napollitano: 10:10
Understood, understood. Let’s transition to the area that you have scrutinized so nicely for us. How close do you think the Ukrainian military is to the end? I mean, by the end, I mean either the Russians have clearly achieved their military objectives or there’s no firepower left, insufficient human beings or insufficient equipment for the Ukrainian military to resist the Russians?

Doctorow:
The Ukrainian military is suffering disastrous losses across the Donbas. In Donetsk in particular, in the neighboring oblasts, Zaporozhye, in Kherson on the right bank of the Dnieper River. In various hot points, they are losing a lot of soldiers, and they are withdrawing under pressure from the Russians. That is not the same thing as speaking of a complete Ukrainian collapse. The Russians have no plans to go beyond the Dnieper River.

What they may do is seize Odessa. What they may do is seize large parts of these other oblasts in the neighborhood, in particular Dnieper-Petrovsk. That may happen, but it’s not the same thing as wiping out the Ukrainian army. And the question is, within Ukraine, will the power structure survive these devastating defeats? Or will it not? It’s not the same thing as saying there’s no Ukrainian army left, there is.

11:50
But these are very embarrassing, politically very sensitive losses, and they should bring down the government. And as for the Russians, what is the Kremlin thinking and doing, on Russian state television, a lot of attention is being given to the defection of the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kuleba, who is now in Krakow, having by stealth crossed the border when, just after Zelensky had put in effect an edict that barred diplomats and former diplomats from leaving the country. That is looked at as a sign of the breakup of the power structure in Kiev. And the Russians are also looking at the breakup of the power structure in western Europe.

12:45
There was a lot of attention to the fall of the Macron government, Mr. Beyrou, who lost his vote of confidence yesterday. They are paying great attention to the political collapse, as well as to the military defeats on the battlefield in Ukraine. Both elements are receiving close attention of the Kremlin, and they are feeding this to the general public via state television.

Napolitano: 13:16
Do you accept the theory that President Putin is very slow, methodical, and patient in the manner in which he wages the war, not because he’s virtuous, not because he possesses the virtue of patience, but because he wants to obliterate the Ukrainian army and kill as many Ukrainian soldiers as he can so that Russia doesn’t have to go through this again for at least another generation. Do you accept that thesis?

Doctorow: 13:50
There’s a lot of merit to that thesis. Of course, nobody can prove it. But when you consider how the Russians have not pressed to the highest advantage their gains on this part of the front or that part of the front, pure military doctrine would suggest that they would keep on running, that they would pursue the enemy in his flight. They’re not doing that.

Instead, they advance and they stop. And they are baiting the Ukrainians to make a counterattack, which they do, and they get slaughtered. So there is a large merit to that interpretation that the Russians could move faster if they wanted to, but would rather destroy the manpower of the Ukrainian army.

Napolitano:
Apologies for going back and forth, but breaking news and commentary keeps coming from this attack in Doha. Prime Minister Netanyahu on his X account, quote, “Today’s action against the top terrorist chieftains of Hamas was a wholly independent Israeli operation.

Israel initiated it, Israel conducted it, and Israel takes full responsibility.” Close quote.

A Professor Saeed Mohammed-Murandi, who’s been a guest on this show, has said, “Why weren’t US regime anti-missile systems activated to help protect Qatari airspace? Because Washington was helping Netanyahu.”

So the words are flying thick and fast. I think the most profound words I heard were yours a few minutes ago, and that is expect some sort of a serious response to this. I don’t know. [Did] the Israelis ever attacked the Qataris before? This is the location of the negotiations. The Israeli negotiators were there as well. They obviously weren’t in the building that was being attacked, but they were all getting ready to meet. I don’t even know if Witkoff was there, but they’re meeting over supposedly Trump’s proposal, the essence of which we don’t know.

Doctorow: 16:06
This is totally outrageous. It is in line, if you want to speak of a moral level, with the outrageous behavior of Israel under Netanyahu in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Syria, in Lebanon. This has gotten totally out of control, and it’s hard to see how this can go on without some violent response. Who will lead that response is unclear, But Mr. Netanyahu, who has done his best to destroy the state of Israel and certainly to destroy the moral weight of Judaism– it’s an enormous attack on the religion, his behavior– and that will take a generational or more for any recovery.

Napolitano: 16:53
Back to Ukraine, if I could. How do you read– you alluded to this a few minutes ago– the fact that French President Macron is now confronted with choosing his fifth, one, two, three, four, five, prime minister in two years. Is this personal unpopularity of him? Is this a rejection by the French General Assembly of his bellicose attitudes toward Russia? How do you read this, Professor Doctorow?

Doctorow:
I wish it were the last, but I don’t believe it is. That is, your last comment, that the bellicosity towards Russia has some impact here. I don’t believe so. I think it was largely decided on domestic issues, although the domestic issues themselves are shaped by the war in Ukraine and Macron’s taking the lead in the coalition of the willing and promising all kinds of financial and arms assistance to Ukraine. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Beyrou’s budget, which was the reason for his defeat, introduced austerity to everything in the French budget except defence, which would rise.

18:15
They would be cutting medical care, They would be cutting back on national holidays, two major national holidays would be taken off the calendar. There [was] a lot of economic hardship being imposed on the general French public, while the military would be rising. I think that is the area where the two meet, the domestic opposition to Macron for his many reforms which were hated by large segments of the population and brought his approval ratings down below 20%. I think his, Beyrou had 15% approval rating. The domestic side of it has been impacted by his belligerency towards Russia and support, unqualified support for Ukraine, with money coming from those taxpayers in France.

19:11
The likelihood that France will find itself in the arms of the IMF for emergency funding because they cannot meet their budget requirements from taxation presently, and they’re five percent or more of a budgetary deficit, which is more than two and a half times what is allowed under EU and central bank regulations. This cannot go on. So the Russians of course are following this very closely because of Macron’s leadership of the coalition of the willing and with good reason.

Napolitano: 19:51
I want to ask you a few more questions about Starmer and Merz, but more breaking news, but this is news in respect of allegations. The Israelis are claiming that the senior Hamas officials were eliminated.

Qatari TV says Hamas delegation survives assassination attempt in Doha. So we don’t know which is the truth. Obviously, we’ll find this out as time progresses, but I thought I would mention that because it’s coming across what used to be called the wires as we speak.

Do you foresee Chancellor Merz and Prime Minister Starmer suffering a similar fate? Either personal popularity so low that they can’t govern or personal popularity so low that the legislative bodies vote no confidence.

Doctorow: 20:58
Let’s separate these cases. Starmer, yes, he can suffer that fate. His government is in disarray. They have had a series of scandals. Once again, the belligerency towards Russia as expressed in appropriations for Ukraine and arms deliveries to Ukraine, they are in contrast with the attempts to cut back on benefits to the population.

He has had a recent scandal in his deputy, the deputy prime minister. This was over domestic issues entirely. But nonetheless, he is being challenged now very effectively by Farage. And he is being challenged within his own party. So the chance of his surviving, I say, is also declining.

22:03
As for Merz, it’s a different story. The real issue here is money. Money talks, Merz has got it. Starmer doesn’t have it, Macron doesn’t have it. And that, when they try to cut the benefits of the general population, then there is seething, loathing, and they are at risk.

Mr. Merz doesn’t have that problem. He may not be liked, and he certainly isn’t liked, but his appropriating of one trillion euros for defense– a large part of it to encourage production, long- range contracts with Germany’s arms manufacturers– that is going to pump some vigor into the economy. This may not be the best way to raise the economy, We certainly don’t believe that, but it has an impact. Money speaks and he’s got the money.

Napolitano: 22:57
Professor Doctorow, thank you very much. Thanks for allowing me to question you all across the board here. And thanks for taking the time out of your unique day and your travels to find time for us. All the best. Godspeed in your travels. We look forward to seeing you again next week.

Doctorow:
Well, thank you, thank you.

Napolitno:
Okay. And coming up very shortly, we’ll have all the latest for you as we can gather it on the Israeli attacks in Qatar and truly one of the more profound people on the planet to analyze it for you at 11 o’clock, Colonel Douglas Macgregor; at 1.15, Scott Horton; at two o’clock, Max Blumenthal; at three o’clock, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski.

23:49
Judge Napolitano for _Judging Freedom_.