Should the president sign the MOU with Iran?

In 2025, Americans lost more than $21 billion to fraud and identity theft. That's why so many people are turning to Aura. Aura helps protect your identity with fraud alerts, dark web monitoring, and up to $5 million in identity theft protection. And if you become a victim, Aura's 24-7 U.S.-based support team is there to help. Don't wait until your identity is stolen. Start your free trial today at Aura.com slash safe. That's Aura.com slash safe. Welcome to today's podcast, sponsored by Hillsdale College, all things Hillsdale at Hillsdale.edu. I encourage you to take advantage of the many free online courses there. And, of course, I'll listen to the Hillsdale Dialogues, all of them at Q for Hillsdale.com, or just Google, Apple, iTunes, and Hillsdale. Morning glory in immigration, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. The big news today, of course, is the MOU set to be signed later this week. President Trump arrived at the G7 in France, went into a gaggle with President Emmanuel Macron of France, said a lot about the deal. Let's start there. Cut number two, the president's sitting in with Emmanuel Macron. Emmanuel has been a special friend of mine. We've had a fantastic relationship. We've worked on many deals together. I'm very happy to say, very signed, the deals all signed. And the strain is already partially open. As you know, they're doing a little hunting for a couple of mines that they've already found. But it's essentially ships are starting to go out now on Friday. It'll be completely open. We got along very well with... Iran, it's a different set of leaders. As you know, the first set is gone, the second set is gone. And we found the third set to be very smart, strong, very smart, but we ended up making a deal. I felt badly that we had to go back on the attack for two nights. And I thought a third, but we made it before that happened. But I think a lot of great things are going to happen in the Middle East right now. And very importantly, the oil is plummeting down. And the stock market is shooting up like a rocket today, like record kind of numbers. And the oil has taken its biggest plunge. And we're into the low numbers, not quite back yet, Kevin, to the extent. But we're getting close to the numbers we were. before it all started. And the main thing is that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. They fully agreed to that with strong policing powers, and they won't have a nuclear weapon, which is what it was all about, because they probably would have used it if they had it. So we had two big moments when they terminated the JCPOA. That was the Obama deal, the Barack and St. Obama deal. And when I terminated that, it was very important because it was a road to a nuclear weapon.

weapon. It was a horrible deal for the United States. It was a deal where billions of dollars was given to Iran. It was a deal where $1.7 billion in cash was put on a Boeing 7 billion. Well, 9775, I guess right? But it was put on a big, beautiful Boeing 757. They needed a Boeing 747, to be honest with you, because there was a lot of cash. 1.7 billion was taken out of the banks and given to a rent. And on top of that, tens of billions of dollars was paid. So they tried to bribe them to make a deal. That didn't work. It never works. We've done a great job, and hopefully it's going to be a good relationship, and we're going to get along. And if we don't, we go back to where we started, but I don't think that's going to be necessary.

A lot of success to the world because the oil was really clogged up there for a while. He would call me on occasion and say, come on, please. Let's go up the oil prices. But the oil is coming away there. So I'm very honored by it. I want to thank you for your help. You've always been out. And it's an honor to be with you. We had a very good conversation yesterday with President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Vladimir Putin. And I see... Maybe we can do something. I really do. I think they're both open to it. So now that this is finished, we're going to be focusing on that. See, we can get that one done. 25,000 people a month are dying, mostly soldiers. And that shouldn't happen. But had two very good conversations yesterday. We'll be talking about it. Okay, so oil is at $80.88 a barrel west Texas crude right now, so it is dropped down on almost 5% today. President promised that we will see the MOU soon, but listen closely to this, cut number three. Mr. President, why do the text of the MOU be released? I think pretty soon, I would say, I mean, I want it to be released because it's a very powerful document. It's not like the Obama document, which was just a terrible document. It's a very powerful document, and I want it to be released. So probably pretty soon, I would say sometime after Friday, because the street opens, it's open now. But it opens completely while all the mines knock out of for the bus. But we have a lot of lanes right now already. So I think sometime in the very near future, you know. Yeah, it would be better before it was signed if the American public had a chance to see it and critique it. Cut number four about when sanctions relief is coming. Mr. President, does the deal really for Iran? When would that go into it? Well, they have to. It's really a behavioral thing. If they do what they're supposed to do, that starts taking effect. And then cut number five, Iran and Hezbollah. A trip or two up here from a few countries. You'd be a great country to do it, because you never know what happens. But I think it's going to be open and I think it's going to be free sailing. We do want to see if we can straighten out the Lebanon thing because it just seems to just never end. And that's a mini version of what we were doing. And it should not be tough. It should not be tough. So Hezbollah, we have to. We have to have a little talk with them. Benny got a question about the JCPOA, and he reiterated why it was such a terrible deal, cut number six. 1.7 billion was taken out of the banks and given to a rent, and on top of that, tens of billions of dollars was spent. So they tried to bribe them to make a deal. That didn't work. It never works. And we...

We've done a great job, and hopefully it's going to be a good relationship, and we're going to get along. And if we don't, we go back to where we started. I don't know if it's going to be necessary. The Iran deal that we made is going to bring a lot of... a lot of success to the world because the oil was really clogged up there for a while. He would call me on occasion, say, come on, please. We've heard that part. Let's go then to Vice President JD Vance on Good Morning America this morning. Excuse me, Good Morning America with George Stephanopoulos this morning. Cut number eight. Well, we already signed the deal digitally yesterday, and there's been no money released, and that won't change, George. Again, this is a performance-based thing. If we see the Iranians making, for example, taking action to eliminate their stockpile of enriched material, then yes, sanctions relief will follow. If we see the Iranians taking action to allow the kind of verification regime that we need to see to know that they're not going to build a nuclear weapon, yes, sanctions relief will follow. So this is really about walking down a pathway here where the Iranians will be welcomed into the world economy if they do the right thing. And, George, we have to remember their economy is fundamentally destroyed. Their nuclear program is fundamentally destroyed. If they don't do the right things, if they don't allow the verification regime, they're never going to have the money to rebuild their nuclear program to begin with. So this is fundamentally a win-win for the American people. What the president has said is he wants it to be a win for the Iranian people as well, but that requires some real trust building and some real positive conduct from the Iranian political system. We're going to see if that happens. If it does, they're absolutely going to find the President of the United States and the entire team. a willing partner to make their country more prosperous. Then the Vice President talked to Gail King on the CBS early show cut number nine. Yeah, Gail, as you know, sometimes with these agreements, there are some diplomatic protocols, some technical things to work out. But we plan to release the full text this week. We want the American people to see it. But we've also seen, of course, some misreporting about what's actually in the agreement. We've seen some accurate reporting about what's in the agreement. I think the most important thing for the American people to appreciate is that what this agreement does is really twofold. On the one hand, it ensures that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon while simultaneously opening the Strait of Hormuz. You already see oil prices. from a high of $126 a barrel down to about $80 a barrel today. That's a lot of progress. But it also, Gail, fundamentally, extends a hand to Iran and says, look, if you guys are willing to honor your obligations, if you're willing to allow real inspections of your nuclear program, then we will welcome you back into the world economy. I think what the president of the United States wants to do is turn over a leaf. of 47 years of a failed relationship between the United States and Iran, but that requires the Iranians to actually honor it there into the bargain. So when people say that billions of dollars of assets will be released, that's not true. What is true is that Iran will have a much better and much more prosperous future if they meet the obligations they make in this agreement. We'll, of course, C, that's one of the things we're going to work out in the technical talks that will follow the official signing on Friday.

And then go to Cut 10 when he talks on CBS with Ed O'Keefe. Cut number 10. Walk through some of this. The Iranians are saying that they're going to have access to a $300 billion reconstruction fund. True or false? Well, Ed, that's the sort of thing they could have access to, funded by the Gulf Coast Coalition, so long as they honor their end of the obligation. I think that one of the things you're going to see, Ed, and people have to be skeptical of this, is that the hardliners in the Iranian system will over-emphasize the benefits that Iran gets, while under-emphasizing all the things that they have to concede and all the things they have to provide in order to get these benefits. So we absolutely are open to the Gulf Coast countries. investing in the reconstruction of Iran, but only if Iran ends their nuclear program. All right, that's where we are as of 325 East Coast time. Stay tuned on YouTube.

Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt, joined now by Dr. Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the United States, former professor at Princeton and elsewhere, noted historian of a preeminent reputation on the Middle East. So, Dr. Oren, what's your assessment of the MOU, the text of which we do not have? Well, good evening, Hugh, always good to be with you. I'm speaking from Israel, and Israel, the mood is very, very somber here this evening. Descence of trepidation, excuse me, disappointment. The war that was begun just over three months ago, kind of aspired to achieve. basic goals for Israel security. And these goals were in cooperation, close cooperation with the United States. That is ending Iran's nuclear program, removing its nuclear stockpile or mixed uranium, ending its ballistic, intercontinental ballistic system, missile system, and stopping Iranian support. for terrorist groups around the region, particularly because Balahamas and the hoodies tonight from what we can gather. And again, I think that JD Vance is right. You've got to be careful with looking at what's in the press. Much of it may be inaccurate. But what we can tell is so far that maybe, maybe there may be a curtailment of Iran's nuclear program, maybe a solution for the nuclear stockpile. We don't know. They have 60 days of negotiations to follow up. But no, really, no solution for the integration. Continental ballistic missile system. And keep in mind, you know, as you know, in this house, we are running 30 times a day into a bomb shelter from those missiles that could take down not just a building, but an entire neighborhood. And no end to support, Iranian support for terrorist organizations. And one of them, Hezbollah, continues to shell. of the northern part of this country, the Galilee, tonight as we speak. So these are very serious concerns for the state of Israel. We believe that, yes, Iran will not exact tolls from ships traversing the Strait of Hermuz, but Iran, according to this agreement, will remain in control of those straits. And I think most broadly, Hugh, There's a sense that American power, which is so important for Israel security, for the stability and security of the Middle East, has been impaired. And that that power was basically formed the basis of the Abraham Accords. And we don't know what countries in the Middle East would join the Abraham Accords in the future that many Middle Eastern countries we fear will now seek a rapprochement with Tehran. So, Ambassador Orrin. I see it a little bit differently, but I'm cautioned by the fact a senior administration official had a conversation with many journalists on Friday morning. And he assured us of a number of things. And one of those things was that they will not control the straight contra what you just said. And the other is that Israel's right to respond to any attack is unlimited.

Is that your understanding on the second because it's clearly not your understanding on the first? Well, it depends I define control. Will they exercise that control or will they remain de facto in control of the Straits of Hormuz? And at such a time in the future, when they have the ballistic missile capabilities and they've restored their economy through the sanctions relief, through the unfreezing of frozen assets for Iranian assets, they could exercise control of the strait once again. That, again, theoretical, but we see no forfeiture so far of Iran, of its... control the straits. Yes, they may say they're not going to accept polls, but the reality, the pre-roar reality in the strait would not be restored. As for Israel's relationship, its ability to defend itself against his Bala. And this is crucial because there are many reports saying that Lebanon was part of this deal, that the Iranians had conditioned the conclusion of the deal on America restraining or tying Israel's hands. and preventing us from responding to Hezbollah terror. That may be true. What I understand now, the agreement recognizes Israel's right to defend itself against Hezbollah, but defend itself how? Defend itself only along the border area, or can we strike at Hisbalah's headquarters in the Dahlia neighborhood of Beirut, as we have in the past? the entire northern part of this country, Hugh, remains uninhabited. And that is not a strategic threat to this country. It is a strict, it is an existential threat to the country. The country loses its northern half. What's preventing Hezbollah, which has rockets that can easily reach the southern part of this country from extending that uninhabited area southward to include Tel Aviv and our southern cities of Ahtod and Ashkalo. That is the fear here tonight. And, you know, we remain in a high tense, feel, at this situation, waiting to see the actual text of this agreement to find out the details, knowing that the devil may be in those details, and the details could be, from our perspective, deadly. Do you believe there's, by the way, when we see the text of the MOU, do you believe we'll see it all? Because the history is littered, as you know as a historian, with secret annexes that nobody learns about until it's too late. Do you think we'll see everything? No, probably not. I don't know many agreements that are published it in total. And yes, you're right, there are secret addicts, and we don't know what's going to be in them. There is, I'm going to mix my metaphors and my cliches by saying the devil's in the details, but the proof is in the pudding.

And we're going to have to see how this agreement, if implemented. And by the way, that could also be a long shot. All you need is some elements within the Iranian leadership who don't like this agreement. And I understand there are elements like that. And a couple of drone attacks, a couple of rock attacks on cargo ships, on American military bases or destroyers in the sea could change a situation rather dramatically. We don't know. Israel will have to continue to defend itself. And that is the first and primary goal of any Israel. leadership, Benjamin Netanyahu's or otherwise, is defend the land and the people of the state of Israel, and right now the land and the people are grievously threatened by Hezbollah. So when the Iranians hit our Apache last week, President Trump ordered a 50 to 100x response. So they hit one helicopter, were blessed that neither airmen was injured or killed, and they were recovered by the drone. But the fact was we came back with two nights of raids that probably got up to 100 targets, but it was a 50x response. Is that what Israel is entitled to do, in your view? Of course, unquestionably. And when President Trump said after the downing of that Apache, the United States has to respond, we say the same thing. And his well is not firing at our troops only as firing at civilian communities across the galley. As I mentioned earlier, many of them have been rendered. utterly uninhabitable, and Israel has to respond. And that is a way of not just maintaining our deterrence against his fellow, but against all our regional enemies. And having the United States back our right to respond in that way is important for America's image in the Middle East. And as you know, in the Middle East, image means everything. Now, I want to ask you, and I'll carry it over in the next segment, and I hope you can stay with me for another one. Israel was attacked on 10-7. It's been 31 months. Is Israel in a better place today than it was on 106-23? Mixed bag. I wish there was a black and white answer there is not. On one hand, we had pushed our enemies back from our borders. We are not in danger of invasion, neither in the south nor in the north. We have degraded Iran's military ability, and we have proven our military prowess. On the other hand, Israel is isolated in the world as never before. We have no recourse. We can't go to Congress. If we disagree with the president in any way, we can't go to the Democratic Party, certainly, nor to our erstwhile friends in Europe. that is a major change. Anti-Semitism has just skyrocketed throughout the world. And we have to take that in consideration. And now disagreement. Disagreement, we don't know the full extent and details of it. But it seems to leave Iran in a position to continue to threaten its neighbors to threaten us in ways that could easily prove deleterious to our fundamental security.

Ambassador Oren will be back with me after the break as I put the best case and worst case scenario question because we don't really know yet. And my friends of commentary were rather downcast. And I just think it's too early to tell. Stay tuned to the Cuehuisher. Welcome back to America. I'm Hugh Hill with Ambassador Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador of the United States. Dr. Oren noted historian of the Middle East. Dr. Oren, Lindsey Graham, Senator Graham, good friend of yours, posted 45 minutes ago. The proposal was envisioned by Vice President JD Vance and the Trump administration to end the Iranian conflict would be transformative for the region and a major achievement leading to broader peace. It is my understanding that terms of the MOU will be released by the administration in coming days. I look forward to reviewing the actual document rather than relying on Iranian propaganda reports. The sooner it is released, the better. I am in Lindsey Graham's camp. I said that on Fox News this morning. I can't tell you. So is the reaction in Israel overwrought, given that we don't know what's in the deal yet? You know, I have nothing but the highest regard and affection for Lindsey Graham, but his statement aside of kind of self-contradictory. At one hand, he says the agreement is going to be transformative to the entire region. On the other hand, he says he doesn't know what's in the agreement. So I think I would like to be in both camps of Lindsey Graham and hope that it'll be transformative for the region, but I still have to see the terms of the agreement. And the way we understand in Israel, the terms of the agreement so far is reason for grave concern here. And we're not... I don't think we're reacting hyperbally in any way. We've had some pretty bad experience with this Iranian regime. I think you'll agree. And so, you know, we have to be very, very cautious. If Iran is able to continue to build intercontinental ballistic missiles that can destroy Israeli cities, if they support terror around the region. And in the world, by the way, they try to assassinate me in downtown Washington. You know, they didn't succeed, as you see, but they try to assassinate the president of the United States. This is the world's largest state sponsor of terror. I don't know what's in the agreement. Is there a condition where they stop supporting terror in some way? Is there a condition where they say, well, we're not going to seek Israel's destruction on a daily basis anymore or develop the means for attempting to do so, because that so far seems to be a major lacuna in the agreement. I understand fully the White House's interest and need to reopen the Strait of Ramuz to get those oil prices down, to get a grasp on the economic ramifications of this war. We had other, how should we say, fish to fry. And those fish, I think, are from Israeli perspectives. They're whales. They're huge. And the difference between peace and a future war. Right now, looking at what we know at the agreement, what I see in the future is not peace in the Middle East, but further upheaval and perhaps a war that's even more devastating than anything we've seen before. Now, could this agreement in any way be as bad as the JCPOA was? I was asked that today, and I said, and Jack Reed, Senator Reid said it was. And I laugh at that because the JCPOA was silent on missiles and drones, and this agreement begins from the situation where the missile and drone production capability of Iran has been wholly devastated, if not completely, then 90%. How could it possibly be the JCPOA again?

Well, there are different estimates about how many missiles they actually have. That goes from 90% to maybe only 20% have been destroyed. We don't know. We also know from our experience with Hezbollah how fast Iran and its proxies can recover from these types of blows, especially if they have the financial wherewithal to do that. The big difference I see between this agreement and the JCPOA is that JCPOA flooded Iran with cash. in the hope that, as President Obama then said, Iran could become a responsible regional power, quote, unquote. What disagreement, I think, is saying, okay, there could be financial rewards for Iran, but first it has to prove that it will be a responsible regional power. And I think that's an important distinction. That is not a distinction without a difference. That is truly a distinction. And we see, now, I feel like I'm giving into cliches all night, but again, I have to hold Iran's feet to the fire on this one. and have very deeply penetrating supervision inspections of its nuclear sites and to monitor very closely Iran's behavior. There was no cap on Iran's behavior in the JCPOA whatsoever. Iran could become a regional hegemon, could expand its sphere of influence across the Middle East, could oppress its own people, and seek Israel's destruction with total, total impunity, more than impunity, with legitimacy and with financing to truly distinguish disagreement with the JCPI. It has to address Iran's missile program and a support for terror. It's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's melline behavior that wonderful euphemism. It's malign behavior as a terror supporting jihadist expansionist regime. Does anyone have known anyone at all from anywhere on the Israeli political spectrum support where we are right now? Well, President, the Prime Minister gave a speech tonight. He didn't praise the agreement. He simply said that the United States and Israel see eye to eye, but in their commitment to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He said that that agreement is between the United States and Iran, Israel is not obligated to that agreement, not party to that agreement, and that Israel cannot be tied with every duty that any Israel in the government will have to defend this land of people of Israel from threats from his bullet or any other proxy of Iran. elements of it. Okay. If you've got 10 more minutes, I would love to keep you for 10 more minutes here. I want to talk about the negotiating team. All right, Dr. Oren will be back after the break. Stay tuned to the Hugh Hewitt Show. Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Michael Oren is still with me, former ambassador from Israel and the United States, eminent historian on all things Middle East, former member of the Knesset as well. Dr. Oren, on Friday with the senior administration official, I got a chance to ask three questions, and I asked, did the current text of the MOU cover the enriched uranium that was not highly enriched? That is the stockpile of 3.6% enriched uranium. Did it cover the missiles and drones? And...

Did it cover Pickax Mountain? After some back and forth about what Pickax Mountain was, the answer I got was, yes, the fourth facility is covered, and I got nothing certain on the other two answers. I don't know that they had been negotiated or not. Do you suspect that this is my suspicion, but I don't know, we don't know the answer to any of these things and that 60 days from now could bring the resumption of war? I doubt to be a resumption of war, but I would expect maybe another 60-day extension to the negotiations. Let's make a little wager, shall we? You and me, Hugh, whether in the course of 60 days all these issues will be ironed out or whether it will be extended. I'm not taking that bad. They're very good at foot-dragging the Iranians, and they'll drag it out, and they think they have internalized that there's no credible military option on the table anymore. Donald Trump could prove. them wrong, certainly, and he is the king of the unexpected. But they have internalized that, and the other Gulf countries have internalized that. It's interesting that with the exception of the UAE, none of these other Gulf countries, though they were pummeled by Iranian missiles, none of them struck back. I think I've said in this program before that the UAE and Saudi Arabia together have something like 900 first-line fighter jets that's almost more than the U.S. and Israel combined, but they didn't take off. They were afraid that the war would end with the United States losing stomach for it, and the Iranians wounded and angry, but still very much alive. And I would not be surprised if you're going to see the leaders of these countries now pretty much standing in line to make up with Iran. So, you know, that is a major transformation in the region. And what can I say? For those of us who hope that the region would be transformed in a different direction, that there would be peace between Israel and Lebanon, peace between Israel and Syria, Saudi Arabia, maybe even peace between Israel and a post-Iolat, Iran, and there would be a Pax Americana restored from the... the eastern shore of the Mediterranean to the banks of the Ganges, that vision, that vision has rapidly dissipated. And now we're told we have to, we have to be, we have to fight just with a reopening of the Strait of Hermuz, which will remain under Iranian control, even though not under Iranian tolls. And in Iran, which, you know, if it cooperates or appears to cooperate, will be given a lifeline. We'll be given a lifeline to a regime that cannot, cannot, cannot, cannot strike. cannot change its DNA. This is who they are. They are not going to be responsible regional power. Everything that's happened since Thursday's announcement by the president of a deal on Friday has been fought out in the information realm as well as at the negotiating table. And in the information realm, it's really quite remarkable. This conversation will be monitored by the Iranian propaganda machine and they will go to work on it in ways obvious. surreptitious. And I am afraid that people who are, like you and me, concerned that it could go bad, may end up helping Iran make it bad by misjudging the resolve of the West to make them change. In other words, I don't want to help them think that they can get away with 60 days, 60 days, 60 days. When, in fact, what I think is if this actually represents

capitulation by the United States, it's a disaster for Donald Trump and JD Vance. That's what I think. If it's capitulation, it's disaster. And so I want to keep open the possibility that it's not. What do you make of that perspective? I agree with you that the hope is that it's not a disaster. Because it's a disaster not just for Donald Trump and J.D. Mass. It's a disaster for our civilization and as a whole. Because what's standing between us and the darkness is the United States of America and its military force and its resolve to fight, to fight back. Israel is certainly standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in that resolve and with the ability to carry out that resolve. And I understand that my criticism of this administration's handling of this war goes back. And we've talked about it before. There was never a fully compelling case made to the American people about why they had to make sacrifices in order to defeat Iran. And there was a very compelling case to be made. And it was not, alas. And I think that that was one of the reasons why there was such pressures on the administration as gas prices went up and the cost of living went up and the cost of fertilizer went up. And a lot of Americans say, why are we doing this? Why are we making these sacrifices? We don't even know where Iran is on the map. So I think that there is criticism there. But the hope, I share your hope that at the end of the 60 days, if Iran is still dragging its feet, then the United States will say, okay, you're going to face the might of the United States Armed Forces once again until you come around. And that's right. I got to get one more question in. This deal. has the potential to split the Republican Party. And I want to just put that out there. Does it have the potential to divide the Benjamin Netanyahu coalition such that he can't win reelection? Well, he's taking a tremendous hit tonight. I don't care how he tried to justify it. He is being attacked by up, down, right and left, including ministers in his own government. Rightly or wrongly, I don't think frankly the prime minister had any much choice, but to try to get the president on board in meeting the existential challenge posed by Iran. He succeeded in doing that. And it's not Benjamin Netanyahu's fault that the United States has said, okay, enough. We've had enough of this war while Israel was willing to continue. It's not his fault. And as they're saying, he put all of his eggs in one basket. I don't see any other baskets around the world, frankly, in Europe or elsewhere, or even in the Democratic Party, for that matter. So I can't think you can fault him, but he is being criticized. The buck ends there with the prime minister, and this is perceived as a major setback for Israel and Israel security. And that's the reality here tonight. Last night, the president issued a statement saying that this agreement would bring peace and stability to the Middle East. I don't think you're going to find any Israeli, much less many people in the Middle East, that would sign on to that declaration. That is a good place to end it. Ambassador Michael Oren, I appreciate the extra time today. Many people are interested in the Israeli perspective on this deal, and I think you've fairly and fully laid it out there, especially at the end. We'll check in again soon, and thank you. Ambassador Michael Oren, by the way, great speech in Europe about Normandy. I didn't know your dad went ashore at D-Day.

And I didn't know anything about World War I. I didn't know anything about the Benjamin Netanyahu ever. I didn't know any of that. So well done. Michael Oren. I appreciate your spending time with me. Welcome back to America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Senator Tom Cotton represents the great state of Arkansas. He's also chair of the United States Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator, I hope you had a great flag day. I want to begin by asking you, have you talked about the MOU with President Trump and Vice President JD Vance and Marco Rubio yet? Any or all of those three? No, not since the president's announcement yesterday, Hugh. So I gather they just signed it, and we would expect it to be released soon. I guess they're going to have some kind of meeting on Friday. So I think it's premature for anyone to weigh in for good or for ill until we actually understand the exact nature of what was agreed to. Obviously, we're in a much better position with... Then we were 11 months ago after two major bombing efforts, destroyed their nuclear facilities and severely degraded their military, unlike what the Democrats keep saying, which is that Barack Obama somehow left us in a better position with his ill-fated agreement with Iran. You know, I came on Fox this morning, and Dana Prino played for me. Senator Reid's statement that they worked with that. They were a year away from breakout after the JCPOA, and now they're days away from a breakout. It's as though he missed the news we destroyed their program, Senator Cotton. Do they not know we destroyed their program? The Democrats these days will say anything if it's critical of Donald Trump. They'll even root against America. So one Democratic Senator over the weekend saying that this deal is a surrender to Iran. as if he could know that without reviewing the details of it. And he was saying that was a good thing because he wanted to the United States to surrender to Iran. But of course, Hugh, as I said, we're in a better position than there were a year ago, certainly a better position Barack Obama ever left the nation because we had two major bombing efforts. Last June that destroyed their nuclear facilities and March and April, which severely degraded their Navy, their Air Force, their missiles, their drones, their manufacturing capabilities. So whatever the shape of a final agreement with Iran, if they even reach a final agreement and they're not constantly trying to walk back their commitments, as we know Iran has a history of doing. We're in much better position than we were. before those two bombing campaigns. All right, Senator, you were on the Intel Committee with Marco Rubio, and so you know what he thinks about Iran, and you two are pretty aligned on that. Does he agree that the entire agreement has to come to the Senate? Not only whatever's in the MOU, but if there's a secret annex or an understanding that isn't written down, all of that has to come to the Senate. Does he agree with that?

Hugh, I think he testified to that effect at the Foreign Relations Committee recently. Obviously, Marco had very strong, was a very strong opponent of... President Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran, he understands that Iran's leaders mean it when this chant death to America. Of course, he also understands that now, as Secretary of State National Security Advisor, he's an advisor, an advisor's advise, the president's decides. So he'll give his best advice to the president. The president will make the decisions that he thinks are in the nation's best interest. But I think Marco testified to the effect two or three weeks ago at the Foreign Relations Committee that any nuclear agreement. with Iran would have to come before the Congress. Now, Senator, on Friday, a senior administration official on background briefed a few reporters. I was among them. My questions were limited, were very specific. Did the text of the MOU deal with all enriched uranium or just highly enriched uranium? Didn't get clarity on that. Did it deal with the actual text, deal with missiles and drones, didn't get clarity on that? Then I asked if it dealt with Pickax Mountain. And after... some hesitation to recognize the term, the senior administration official, said, yes, we're aware of a fourth facility, and it's dealt with. What do you want to see in an MOU about Pickax Mountain, Senator?

falsely claims that its enrichment and other nuclear program had no military justification. That is all about civilian research, as if Iranians have been winning a bunch of Nobel prizes about nuclear research over the last 30 years. If it's a civilian program, to you, obviously there's no reason to have these centrifuges buried 300 feet under Rocky Mountains. So I think, as I've said now for 12 years in the Senate, a very reasonable position would be for Iran to open up its underground bunkers to demonstrate that they have no centrifuges there and to allow continual inspections to demonstrate that they're not using those bunkers to try to enrich uranium to weapons grade. So is anywhere any time inspections on demand the, I've seen an enanquois for you, have a good deal? Do I think the important part, but to be honest, I've never believed that kind of inspection regimes can be truly effective in Iran. First off, Iran is twice the size of Texas. And we're talking about things that might fill up, you know, a high school gymnasium, maybe a NFL practice facility. But second, Iran's leaders have a long demonstrated history of lying. And the way you know they're lying is when they're moving their lips. So the only true guarantee, in my opinion, has always been that they take the root of countries that's disarmed in the aftermath of the Cold War and kind of threw open the doors and said, come look at everything, take everything away. We want nothing to do with nuclear research. So, Senator, my big concern domestically is that the deal has the potential to split the Republican Party because some of us are longstanding hawks about Iran and don't believe a word they say and wish the war continued. And some of us are so-called restrains. Do you see that potential out there? I think it's too early to conclude to you. Again, you know, the text of... of what the president has signed will be released sooner or later. And I understand that some of the key points are simply being hunted. So in some ways, this is an agreement to disagree and to continue deliberations, which is essentially a continuation of the status quo over the last 60 days, minus, as the president said, reopening of a straight without any tolling or other kinds of obstruction and lifting of the blockade. So I just spent three segments with Ambassador Oren and the reaction in Israel to reports of the deal from left to right uniformly is extremely negative and very damaging to Benjamin Netanyahu. I have neither – I don't carry Benjamin Netanyahu's brief. I don't vote in Israel. But are you surprised that all of Israel is united in hating on the outlines of the deal that have been leaked? Because it's a little premature, but – Hugh, I think it's fair to say it is premature. I don't want to opine on every single Israeli commentator or pundit across the spectrum. I will say that Israel has been a model partner to the United States in this battle against Tehran. We fought alongside Israeli forces in a way we haven't fought alongside a peer military going back to Great Britain in World War II. It's obvious and understandable that's

The Israeli people are even more concerned and invested in the outcome here, given they're a small nation that live in the neighborhood with the run, and we're a big nation that lives very far away, and has many different concerns, both at home and in other parts of the world. So I understand that Israeli people may be following this a bit more closely than many Americans are, but I think it's premature, again, for anyone to reach a final and firm judgment until the text of any agreement is released. And we're going to leave it there because I agree with that. Senator Tom Cotton, thank you, as always, for joining me. Follow him on X at Sen, Tom Cotton, S-E-N, Tom Cotton, and you'll be up to speed on whatever is going on. Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. Joined by Salina Zito. Selina's America's column. She writes for the Washington Post. She writes for the New York Post. She writes for the Washington Examiner. She writes for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. She writes on the walls in her house. I think she just is always writing. Selena, I want to celebrate one thing. Amid all the angst over the MOU. The great weekend refreshment was watching Europeans experience America as they travel to World Cup game. What's been your favorite part of that? All of it. What has been my favorite part has been European seeing our country for what it is, as opposed to what they often would read in elite news organizations, either European ones or American ones, that often depict it as a sort of. A living dystopia of awfulness. I can't, I can't describe it any other way. And to see just sort of their joyful realization of watching how Americans love to be aspirational, to be part of something bigger than self, and how much they enjoy that, how much they enjoy helping each other. I mean, you grew up in Ohio, in Pennsylvania, think about in Michigan, Wisconsin. You get to a four-way. stop and most of the time people will wave each other on to the point where it gets annoying and nobody moves. This is a culture that loves to help people. This is a culture that is proud of localities and localism, but also even our franchises. And we want you to enjoy them. We want you to feel happy about them. And it's sort of just been a very joyful experience to see who we are and what we are, seeing through the eyes of someone who maybe had an expectation that we were something different. Yeah, there are lots of these accounts. My favorite is Freddie, the German, but there are a lot of accounts. Freddie's very funny. He's in the South. Now, a question occurred to me, where would you take the World Cup fans that they're not going to see? For example, I'm going to give you my first example. I would drive them along the Madison River from Ennis to my friend Janjanoa's house and then take them fly fishing at the Wild Adventure, TWA.U.S., because nobody understands Montana until you've driven through Montana. And there's not going to be any World Cup in Montana. Where would you take that?

No, that's a great idea. I think fly fishing anywhere in this country, right? There's a fly fishing spot along Spruce Crick, as they say around here, where there's... Do they say anything else anywhere? The word crick is crick. Crick. There's a place in Altoona where you can go to the Altoona Curb baseball game, which I talked Tom Cotton to going to last year, and then there's an amusement park behind it. I mean, there's so many magical places in this country where something is, what we might view as simple or ordinary as part of our days can really be. something special to someone that's never experienced it. And it gives us an ability to have fresh eyes on the treasure that they're right in front of us. And sometimes we tend to take for granted. My second suggested place, and you get a chance to think of yours, is I would double up Cooperstown and the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton. Because they have their sports, they have their soccer, but they don't get America's obsession with those two sports. And I think the Hall of Fame for both of them would be good trips. How about you? Yeah, I love Cooperstown. It is so, it's like a Norman Rockwell town, right? It's filled with so much rich history. But it's also a throwback, small American town where they can really experience America in a very simple and very sweet and charming way. But also the football, I mean, the baseball Hall of Fame is just bar none. All right, so my last suggestion, it comes from you and Dwayne talking during the break about amusement parks. And I don't want them to go to Disney World. I don't want them to go to Disneyland. I don't want them to go to Universal Theater. That's the highest end of that. I want them to go to Cedar Point or Six Flags or Dollywood or one of the regional parks, right? Because then you get the full regional park experience. Yeah, a lot of our amusement parks in our country were built at the end of old trolley lines. It encouraged people to use the trolleys and to get off in different stops. and spend money in small little business districts and little towns and even in the cities. There's one in Pittsburgh. It's called Kennywood Park. There's also a sister one in Ligonier, Pennsylvania, called Idaho Park, very old-fashioned trolley parks that have grown into these institutions that attract both young and old. There's also water parks now associated with it, and it's a much commerce.

sort of laid back way to enjoy amusement parks. But there's also a lot of old rides in these old amusement parks, right? Ones that have endured for over 100 years. You can see the craftsmanship that went into like the merry-go rounds or the auto racer. So there's a, and there's always great food, right? There's always, there's always an amusement park that's known for it's French fries or it's hot dogs or it's or it's hamburgers. That brings me to my last suggestion. I would love for them to go to a parish festival. Every parish in Ohio had a unique festival. Mount Carmel was very Italian. St. Mary's was very Irish Catholic. A parish festival is a unique thing. It happens all over America, right? Would you send them to one in Pittsburgh? Have you got one in your mind? Yeah, there's a Lebanese festival in Pittsburgh, and the food is to die for. But there's also the Polish festival, which has the most amazing variety of pierogies that you'll ever have. Oh, I think they should go to that. Oh, they should definitely go to that. Because that's the thing I've seen. They're all eating the size of the servings and the remarkable food. So I think it's really cynical public has posted this. It's making a lot of Americans across the aisle happy. Is it making you happy to watch these people comment on our country? Oh, yeah. And I think the other thing that's really, you know, great to watch is all the people showing up to see the big boy, right? The Union Pacific Railroad. Yep. Just showing. Everywhere across the country was up in Luzerne County over the weekend going across the viaduct. You just see people, I mean, they turn it into a festival, a tailgate. And it's really magical. Part of America, 250. Selena Zito, follow her on X at Zito. Her website is selina Zito.com. If you want to read everything that Selena Zito writes. It's all right there. She also happens to be President Trump's favorite journalist. So always find out what he's thinking via Selena. And stay tuned to America. I'll be right back. Grace, America. Welcome to Hour 3 of the Hugh Hewitt Show. Today on the Salem News Channel, the Salem Radio Network, all of our radio affiliates across the United States. Coming up after my first guest, I'll be joined Judge Roy Sam Altman of the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. You've got a brand new book, Israel on trial, which we'll be talking about for most of the rest of the hour. But I'm so pleased to begin the hour with Jamie Fly, because I don't forget nice gestures. When I got back to Washington, D.C. in 2016, one of the first offers for coffee I got in the halls of the Senate was from Jamie Fly, then Senior Advisor to now Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Jamie Fly, good to see you again, and especially since you're running Freedom House, which I've long, long admired. How did that journey unfold? How did we go from the caverns below the Senate to your running Freedom House? Where have you been in between?

Well, great to see you, Hugh, and thanks for having me. So I've been all over the place in between. I was in Europe for several years as president of Radio Free Europe, the U.S.-funded broadcaster, reaching audiences in countries where they don't have access to independent information. I was at Palantir for a couple years in the private sector and then had this opportunity to come lead Freedom House, which is the oldest democracy organization in the U.S. and has a great bipartisan history going back to Wendell Wilkie and Aldo Roosevelt. We're founding in 1941, so I'm excited to be here. I cut my teeth before you were born. When I was working for Richard Nixon on the real war, Freedom House was a go-to source on Soviet Union and dissidents. So you're still holding high the flag of liberty in every country, and especially on behalf of dissidents. Tell people what Freedom House's work is primarily today, and then let's zero in on people like Jimmy Lye and others that we are high-profile dissidents in the world. Yeah, so a part of our work today remains the bipartisan mission of our founding 85 years ago of Republicans and Democrats coming together. setting their partisan differences aside and uniting behind the cause of liberty overseas. And the way we then do that and implement that is by often supporting those on the front lines of freedom from Iran to China, people in Hong Kong like Jimmy Lai that you mentioned. We have a political prisoner program. We provide funding and resources to those who are fighting for freedom in their countries. And we also obviously do a lot of research and highlight the plight of those who are facing repression and advocate for government policies both here in the U.S. and internationally to help those who are on the front lines of freedom. So I've got some specific questions. I want to begin with Jimmy Lide. The president has talked about him on this program three times. So is Marco Rubio, so is JD Vance. They all say he's high on the agenda, and I believe them. I believe the president brought him up. I also am beginning to conclude that Chairman G is indifferent to the asks of the world. What do you think, Jamie Fly? Well, I think the first step, and I think this administration, which, you know, doesn't always prioritize cases like Jimmy's and political prisoner cases in human rights compared to previous administrations. But in this case, President Trump seems to have taken a personal interest. As far as we know, he advocated for both Jimmy Lai as well as other prominent political prisoners in China like Pastor Ezra Jin, who were also advocating here at Freedom House on behalf of. He raised these cases, but as you know, from your decades-long experience, you can't just raise them once. You need to keep on raising them with these authoritarian leaders. And eventually there needs to be some sort of pressure exerted to get the release. And I think hopefully that's where the administration will go next. President G. wants to come to the U.S. later this year in the fall. And so I think one thing we're advocating for is that...

Maybe he shouldn't come unless there are some of these prisoners released. And so the administration has leverage points. They just need to be willing to use them. So second question, Jamie, right out of the front pages today. I don't know what's in the MOU between the United States and Iran. And as a result, I'm withholding judgment until I can actually see it. And the text will be released later in the week. But I know what I don't need to see, which is Iran's record on freedom and human rights. They've executed, I believe, 40 people this year alone between 15 and 20 by hanging. They remain, at least among the most repressive regimes that don't have to be repressive. because they have all sorts of alternative ways such as exile. What's freedom-house think of Iran outside of the context of the current battle but as a regime and its human rights policy? At Freedom House, we've been focused from day one on the plight of the Iranian people. And I think that's the real danger at this moment as there's talk about a nuclear agreement or some sort of agreement on the Strait of Hormuz. The fundamental reality hasn't changed. And actually, in some cases, might have gotten worse. This is an extreme regime that hates Israel. It hates America and Americans. It's going to continue to target us here at home and abroad. And it's brutal to its people. And until that... fundamental fact changes were going to have an Iran problem. You know, I started my career at the George W. Bush administration. I worked on Iran in 2008 at the Bush NSC. We also, at the time, got sucked into nuclear negotiations. I was with Marco Rubio when the JCPOA was pushed forward by the Obama administration. And the Senate tried to stop it, and we failed, unfortunately. We've seen this playbook again and again and again, and we're going to have an Iran problem as long as the Mullahs are in charge of the regime. And so there are things that we need to do to elevate the plight of the Iranian people to give them tools to help themselves, whether it's Internet access, pushing them to free political prisoners. And right now we just don't see any of those. core issues related to their fundamental aspirations reflected in the negotiations, unfortunately. Thank you for reminding me that you are JCPOA fluent. I was asked on Fox News this morning by Dana Perino, with whom he worked, about the JCPOA and the MOU. And because Senator Reid said this is worse than the JCPOA, and I conclude that's absurd. The JCPOA was silent on missiles and drones. President Trump's battle with Iran has destroyed the missiles and drones and their ability to produce them. That right there means we're starting from a different baseline. How do you assess people who say, oh, this is JCPOA 2.0 without even having seen it?

Look, I think you're right. I mean, Iran has been weakened from this military campaign. Obviously, Operation Midnight Hammer last year was devastating to the Iranian nuclear program, even if it didn't eliminate the threat entirely. So we're dealing with a different Iran. However, what worries me is I think the regime that is left is even more hardened, going to be more resistant to change, probably going to crack down on the Iranian people. in a more extreme way in the coming months and years. And when it comes to JCPOA, I think one interesting thing will be, will we have a congressional debate about this at all? Obviously, under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which many of us were involved in writing, Senator Marco Rubio champion at the time, Congress should have a say here. And so I do think we need to discuss all of these issues, but I do agree with your premise that this is a weaker Iran than we were dealing with when the JCPOA was concluded. Hopefully no pallets of cash this time. like during the JCPOA, but still, like the JCPOA, we're not addressing the core issue of the regime. Senator Graham has brought up the review law. He intends to invoke the review law, and I'm sure I'll talk to many others in the weeks ahead, if there is a deal after the MOU that will be subject to it. Back to Freedom House. The index from Freedom House has always been something I've looked forward to. But that was very effective in the era of reading and magazines. Now that we've gone to the online era over the weekend, just since Thursday. and Friday. There's been a battle of the narratives between trolls and made-up accounts and parody accounts and fake accounts. How does Freedom House wage the battle for freedom in the online era when a simple annual publication doesn't do much to keep up with the title wave of knowledge? It's a good point, but we're still doing the annual report. We have, it's the longest running Democracy Index in the world, 53 years. We have 53 years of data, but we're changing how we present it. We're leveraging technology. We're presenting in new formats to reach younger generations. We do feel it's important, though, to maintain the data and the consistency over time so we can look at trends. The other thing we do is through our programming and our support to frontline activists, we're arming them with technological tools to get Internet access when their regimes are denying them of such access, trying to help them eliminate spyware from their phones that authoritarian regimes may be using to target them. And so really trying to leverage the best of American technology to help frontline freedom fighters in a way that wasn't possible during the Cold War. And also funding investigative journalists, and those are exposing... the corruption, the sanctions evasion that are used by authoritarian regimes as well as the propaganda that they're spreading. And so in each of those areas, we're combating the authoritarian's directly around the world. All right, last question. Both Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance have gone to the Munich conference to deliver warnings about freedom to our European allies. Over the weekend, Keir Starmer simply shuttered the Internet to people under the age of 16. I understand why he did that. It's not very free. What do you make of that policy? What do you make of Europe's, you know, jump left overall when it comes to freedom issues? Yeah, I think it's something interestingly at Freedom House, although, you know, we're often described as a human rights organization. We have a pretty purest view of freedom, including freedom online. And so we have...

Another report called Freedom on the Net we put out every year. And in that report, if you look at the last year, we documented a lot of the issues that are being raised by the administration in the UK, in Germany, where they have different perceptions of freedom and more willingness than we do in the U.S. with our First Amendment to actually limit free speech online. And so we have highlighted those concerns. I would say the one difference we probably have, and I personally have. When we look at the grand scheme of things, I think we need to put everything in perspective. The U.K. is not North Korea. Germany is not the Communist Party of China. And so, you know, we want to be measured about how we respond, especially to allies. Jamie Fly, President of Freedomhousehouse. Thank you for joining me. Freedomhouse.org. Freedomhouse.org. Did I get the web address right, Jamie? Freedomhouse.org. Freedomhouse.org, yes. Yeah. Freedomhouse.com. Go there, market. Go there often. Good to talk with you again. Jamie Fly, President of Freedom House. Stay tuned. Coming back with Judge Roy Sam Altman. and his book, Israel on trial. Don't go anywhere. My friends, you've probably seen the headlines are worse. Your latest bill. Big wireless is raising rates again. That means you could be paying more for the same service or getting pushed into a price here plan you simply do not need. That's not right. You can switch to consumer cellular right now and save an additional $50 when you go to consumer cellular.com slash you and use the promo code Hugh 50. And if you happen to be over the age of 50, listen to this. You can get a single line with unlimited talk, text, and data for just $355 a month. Remember, there are numbers, $8004114454, 8004114454. Consumer Cellular ranks number one for network coverage and for customer satisfaction according to ACSI. And when you switch, you'll talk to an actual human being. based right here in the United States. No long-term contracts, no hidden fees. You can keep your phone or choose a new one. Get an additional $50 off when you switch today using promo code, Hugh, 50. And do not forget, if you are over 50, you get a single line, unlimited, talk, texting data for $35 a month. Visit consumer cellular.com slash hue and use promo code. Hugh 50 or call 1-800-41144 and use promo code Hugh 50.

Welcome back in America. I'm Hugh Hewitt. I am joined by United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida. Roy Sam Altman. He is the author of this brand new book, Israel on trial, fabulous book, because for the first time, I think a sitting federal judge has taken on questions and answered, made rulings on a subject of controversy. Judge Sam Altman, welcome. I am not now, nor have I ever held myself out to be a litigator. So if I get anything wrong, please don't hold me out of order or disbar me. All right, I've been practice in a long time. Hate to lose my license on an interview. I won't have you executed. I promise you. Thanks for having me. Good to have you. I found this very persuasive. I first want to go to motive before you move through the six critical claims that you deal with in an evidentiary rule of law kind of way. Why the motive now, Judge? Well, because I came to this country from Venezuela with my family when I was a little boy with nothing, knowing no one. And I always learned here that if you worked hard and treated people with respect, you could be or do anything because we were a meritocratic society that cared first and foremost about the rule of law. And implicit in that is an understanding that the rule of law and Western civilization more broadly can only survive if people. are good at thinking for themselves and discerning truth from fiction. And after October 7th, I was deeply concerned and remained concerned about the extent to which millions of my fellow Americans, people that are my neighbors, sometimes friends. Listen to things that are propagated by our geostrategic enemies, China, Russia, and Iran about our most important strategic ally in the world, and believe it, hook, line, and sinker without using the time-tested methodology that we in the law have developed over hundreds of years to be able to help people analyze contested claims. And so I traveled around the country. trying to understand why people believe these totally false things about Israel in large numbers. And I came to realize that the entire debate about Israel comes down to these six main claims that people believe. And the good news is, one, they're all totally false. But two, that we actually can recognize in each of these claims that they are legal claims at their core. Is Israel violating the laws of war, genocide? Is Israel discriminating against its minority citizens? Apartheid. Is Israel taking land that doesn't belong to it? Occupation, colonialism. So I thought, why not apply the same legal methodology that judges, lawyers, and juries apply every day in this country? A time-tested methodology that's been around for hundreds of years and a methodology we know we trust because we use it where truth-telling matters the most in the courtroom to each of these six claims and see what happens. And that's why the book is called Israel on trial. All right, two nerdy questions first for maybe the lawyers or the lawyer adjacent piece out there. We do have standards for judging credibility, whether in the courtroom.

or on a news channel, or both and everywhere. Indeed, all of us carry around a credibility monitor in our head. When you go online, I refuse to read comments. If I don't know the poster, I don't put anything into it, and I don't pay any attention. I said this on Fox News earlier today. If it's coming from mayors or Fars or one of the Iranian news agencies, I just don't believe them because they have no credibility. What's your test for credibility about people in the argument about Israel? This is really important, okay, because so much of the evidence that I lay out in each of the six chapters relies on the kind of tests that we as lawyers and judges and juries use every day in the courtroom. I'll give you a couple of examples, okay? The first example is that it's often better. to get your information by an objective or independent third-party source than from a witness who has a vested stake in the action, right? So if a person from Gaza stands up and says, hey, You know, I'm a doctor here, and I'm totally independent from Hamas, and I treated 50 people who were killed today. Well, we should be very skeptical of that from the beginning, right? We know that Hamas is a totalitarian regime. We know what totalitarian regimes look like around the world. They don't allow people to become doctors or journalists, for that matter, unless you're part of the program. You're not going to get the licensure unless you're part of the program. a journalist says something from Gaza, or as you were just saying, if it comes from our geostrategic enemies, whether it's the Muslim Brotherhood, the Chinese Communist Party on TikTok, or certainly from the Iranian government, we've got to take that with a significant grain of salt. So it's always better to get things that no one can really dispute. So what kinds of things am I talking about? Well, I talk about this in chapter one of the book, right? In terms of deciding. whether you believe that Jews have lived in the land between the Jim Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea since ancient times. We can put aside what so-and-so doctor from the Shifa Hospital in Gaza thinks. We can put to one side what Rabbi so-and-so from Jerusalem thinks. I'm not saying you shouldn't believe the Bible. I certainly do, and there are many people who do. I'm just saying if you were trying to assess the contested claim objectively, you can put that aside if you want. But there are three buckets of totally objective independent evidence that tell you. That the people who lived in the land between the Jim Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea thousands of years ago were Jews who spoke Hebrew, who practiced the Judaic religion and who passed on to their children and grandchildren the same naming conventions that we Jews, and especially the Jews who live in Israel today, still pass on to their children.

And grandchildren. So what are those three buckets? The first I call rocks in the ground. That's archaeological evidence going back thousands of years. The second is words on the page. That's documentary evidence on papyrus and parchment and other paper, oftentimes written by Israel's ancient adversaries. That's important because it brings to the four two important credibility rules like you asked for. The first is... If a party's adversary says something favorable to your claim, we pay special attention. Everybody knows that Roy in his lawsuit about Roy is going to say things that are favorable to Roy. Fine. But when your adversary, the ancient Babylonians, the Romans, the Assyrians, the invading Ottomans, say things that are favorable. to the Jews claim, we got to pay special attention. The second rule that's important there is that when you said something long before you knew the dispute was going to arise, again, we give that special credibility, right? Because if I said something 20 years ago before I ever bought the house about which I would have a lawsuit with my neighbor, before I even met that neighbor, And that thing I said 20 years ago now plays directly and is relevant in that dispute. We should give it special credibility, right? Because I said it long before this dispute arose. And in this case, lots of this evidence comes thousands of years before there was ever such a thing. as a Palestinian in the world. And then the third and last bucket is blood in the veins. There have been dozens of genetic studies conducted on every major Jewish population in the world, showing that all the major Jewish populations in the world are intimately and genetically connected with one another, and that we all left and flowed from the Levant, the land between the Jim Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. 2,000 years ago, just as the Bible says, just as the archaeological and documentary proof shows, when three pieces of evidence corroborate one another and they're objective in that way, that's pretty dispositive proof. There's more coming up with Judge Sam Altman. You may have gathered he was a prosecutor before he was a judge because he knows how to do an argument. We'll come back and talk about Israel on trial. His brand new book is fascinating. You will learn a lot if you don't know much. You'll learn some if you know much. Don't go anywhere. I'll come back and talk with Judge Sam Altman about Israel on trial. Stay tuned. Welcome back to America. I'm Hugh. Judge Sam Altman is still with me. Judge, one of the things I like about your book is its resource thick and it is source aligned. That means when I take a look at a book that, for example, quotes historian Paul Johnson on page 86, who points out the entire history of anti-Semitism.

demonstrates how impervious it is to awkward facts, facts buried and forgotten by the official propagandists along the way, that tells me you've done your homework about non-Jewish authors who've written extensively on the history of the Jews and the history of Israel. You also quote people like the First King who are saying, you quote all sorts of different people, so you did your homework. So that's a credibility enhancer. I don't know if they teach evidence at Yale. When I went to Michigan, I had the great John Reed. Do they teach evidence at Yale? Judge, that's kind of a real thing. Not in any way. Not in any way that you would really understand it. No, no, not at all. I've hired a few Yaleys in my life from Yale Law School, and they were all kind of unacquainted with civil procedure and evidence. But the rules of evidence don't change much. So you have been very specific here. Second question, long ago and far away, before I think you were born. I clerked on the D.C. Circuit for a guy named Roger Rob, and we had a case called Hanak-Telleran versus United Arab-Libbean Republic. It was a political question case about a terrorism attack on the Haifa Highway dating from the late 70s or early 80s. I can't remember. And Judge Rob just had me write it up, political question, political question, he wasn't going to touch it for a political question doctrine. Do you think Israel on trial is getting into political questions? Definitely not. And so I think this is really important. The first thing to say is I didn't write the book as a judge. As I said, I wrote it as an American who cares deeply about the truth and the future prosperity, both of this country and of Western civilization more broadly. But second, if you read the book, and I know Hugh, based on the quotes you've just given me, you've read it very carefully, you'll see that the book is very much in line with what other judges, including Supreme Court justices have written, which is it's a book about history. It's a book about the law. And I think it's perfectly permissible to say, here's what the history is, here's what the rocks in the ground showed, here's what Merneptis-Steely looks like, here's what the law requires. And then to apply the law to those facts, people say to me all the time, I don't want to read your book because I hate Beebe or I don't like Trump or whatever it is. And I say, you know what, great. Neither of them really appears in the book at all because it's not a book about politicians, political parties, or political issues. It's about history in the law. And in that way, I think it's very much in keeping with what our canons require. All right. So, Judge, I'm curious. Have you been invited a wide-ranging way by America's law schools, which are all fundamental – I'm still a

Most of the law schools in America have gone off the left edge, and they haven't got a lot of me or you on their faculty. Have you been asked to lecture at many Americas law school yet? Yes, I have, although not necessarily by the law school itself. Many times it's by organizations within the law school or on the college campus. I've been to dozens and dozens of college and law school campuses around the country. It's usually some combination of the Federalist Society, the David Network, the Jewish Law Students Association. Sometimes other groups will join. But as a result of that, as you well know, these lectures are open to anyone on... campus who would like to participate you know so we get all kinds and i think that's a good thing That is a good thing. I hope you'll make it out to Chapman when I am there. Now, let's get to the six key claims about which you apply what I'll call American evidentiary standards as understood by a judge who have to apply them every day in a federal courtroom. Number one, the Jews are colonists in the land of Israel. Number two, that Israel's founding was illegitimate or aberrational. Number three, that Israel has prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state. Number four, that Israel was occupying Gaza and it turned Gaza into an open-air prison or concentration camp before October 7. Number five, that Israel is an apartheid or white supremacist state. Number six, that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza will deal with number seven in the next segment. But let's just go to number four, that Israel was occupying Gaza and turned it into an open-air prison or concentration camp before October 7. I got two minutes left in this segment. Take it away, Judge Sam Altman. Yeah, well, unfortunately, my family knows what a concentration camp looks like. My mother's half-brothers and sisters were pushed into the gas chambers, little boys and little girl on the day that they arrived and murdered there. The chief and I, as a judge, and as a former prosecutor before that, I'm intimately aware with what prisons are like. The chief characteristic that both share in common is that you can't do anything without asking the warden for permission and that you certainly aren't allowed. to leave. But the problem with this claim is that Israel fully withdrew from Gaza way back in 2005. They said to the Palestinians, here's Gaza, it's yours. Make what you will of this place. We want to divorce. You have your own sovereignty. We have our own. The Palestinians elected their own government, Hamas, to run the Palestinian people. And Israel has many times said, you're free to leave if you want. It's Hamas that has prevented them from leaving. That's the very opposite of a concentration camp or prison. I'll be back with more from Judge Sam Altman's brand new book, Israel on trial. It's in bookstores now. Israel on trial at Amazon. Don't miss it. I'll be right back with the judge. Stay tuned.

Welcome back, America. Judge Roy Sam Altman is my guest. His book is Israel on trial, beautifully written, beautifully orchestrated, argued. I'm a lawyer, so I'm a sucker for this stuff, and I'm a law professor, so I like facts, evidence, and argument. I want to make sure I get to two of the claims in our remaining eight minutes, Judge, from Israel on trial. Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. I think it's absurd, absolutely absurd of the worst genociders ever in the history of genocide. But that's not a fact-based argument. That's a conclusion-driven rhetorical point. What about the evidence on the genocide claim? Well, the word genocide requires a specific intent to destroy the Palestinian people in whole or in part as such. In other words, as we've seen from real genocides in history, think the Holocaust that part of my family had to go through, think about the Hutus against the Tutsis in Rwanda, the Armenian genocide. You have a top-down architecture from the governing regime to destroy, eliminate from the face of the earth, the people in question. in the Holocaust, right? There were 12 million Jews remaining after the six or seven years of the Holocaust. Before the Holocaust, there were 18 million Jews. That's six million missing Jews in six or seven years. Here in Gaza, it's important to remember that the proponents of the genocide myth don't believe that there's only been one genocide since October 7th. They have claimed on five separate occasions that Israel has perpetrated five separate genocides against the Palestinians of Gaza. That is, five separate attempts to wipe them off the face of the earth since Israel withdrew in 2005. Some of these involved situations where the Moss attacked Israel, killed a few Jews. Israel did a reprisal. maybe a few Palestinians were killed. That was called a genocide. But here's the number discrepancy. When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, there were one million Palestinians there. Despite having five separate genocides perpetrated against them in the 20 years since, I think most of the numbers from the CIA, the Israelis, and even the Gaza Health Ministry agree the population has more than doubles, such that there is over 2.2 million. million Gazans in the area today, either Israel hasn't committed any genocide or were to believe that the country with F-35s, nuclear weapons, and one of the most sophisticated armies and air forces the world has ever known has been the most inept genocidal regime in the history of the planet. The reality is that's well stated. That's what I'll say. That is conclusory. Let's get to the one that is the most important one in the book. It's the seventh claim. People have to actually read through all of Israel on trial to find it, which is that anti-Zionism isn't anti-Semitism. This one drives me crazy, Judge, because I run into it all the time in broadcast settings and in classrooms saying, oh, I don't hate the Jews, I just don't like Zionism. Oh, I'm not anti-Semitic. I'm just anti-Zionist.

Explain your argument why that's impossible. If you're going to call yourself an anti-Zionist, at least be honest about it, you're an anti-Semite. First of all, the entire history of anti-Zionism was always popular in the Soviet states and later in the Arab world precisely because it was understood to be anti-Semitic. In other words, anti-Zionism, which started with Lebanon in 1917, and then proliferated all through the Arab world, became fashionable in states where anti-Semitism was fashionable because everyone understood that the two were conjoined. Now, of course, it's unfashionable. in most circles in the West to be anti-Semitic, so people are trying to disassociate the two, but that's a historical anachronism. Second, we have to recognize more than 50% of the world's Jews live in Israel. So when we say that, well, we don't like it when people take hostages in Africa, and we don't like it when people commit kinnocide, forcing men to have sex with their daughters at gunpoint in Rwanda, but we're just kind of okay with it when it happens to Jewish boys and Jewish girls and Jewish fathers in Israel. There's something deeply anti-Semitic about that. And then third, and lastly, we have to understand as Americans. We like to be able to say we're going to. criticize an American policy without being anti-American. But the whole point of anti-Zionism is the belief that all peoples deserve a state of their own where they can exercise sovereignty, the Japanese, the Bulgarians, the Koreans, the Koreans, even the Palestinians. But Jews do not. That is anti-Semitism for all time. And I want to close this, Judge, by thanking you for your time. But also by saying to anyone out there is wondering, is this book really that good? It's been endorsed by John Spencer, by Yuval Levin, by Mark Gerson, Ambassador Friedman, John Pod Horitz, Jed Rubenfeld, up from Yale Law School. You really, you got people to line up behind this project, Judge. So my hat is off to you on the marketing side. How is it doing? Judges can't sell very well. I've had justices, Amy Coney Barrett, and Gorsuch on the program, but they have to be very careful about how they sell. How is this selling? It's kind of unbelievable. You write a book on vacation like I did, and then... You think maybe your mother will read it, you know? And we just passed, I think, 20,000 copies, according to the publisher sold, became an instant New York Times and USA Today bestseller, which is the first time I've been happy with the New York Times in about three years. And the publisher just printed, I think, 25,000 more. It's been a tremendous national bestseller, which has been a tremendous surprise to me. Well, I think it could actually serve as a...

core foundational text for a law school course on the claims surrounding Israel. Last question. I refuse to comment about the deal on the MOU because I haven't seen it and read it yet. Do you have any comment on it? I like you. I do this with trials when people come to me and say, can you believe how guilty that defendant is in some trial in San Jose that you've never really heard of? I say, listen. I see trials all the time where you hear the opening statement and most of the case in chief, you think the case is going to go one way, and then the other side gets a say. Until you've lived it, seen it, and breathed it, you really don't know what the facts are, and you'd be a fool to comment on it. That's especially true of a deal. I haven't had the opportunity to read, and so for now I have no comment on it. All right. We've got one minute left. I love it when young judges go on the bench, and I hope they stay 40 years. A lot of young judges don't. Do you have thought that through? How long are you going to stay on the bench because you're obviously a public man who and you enjoy the controversy in the debate? Are you going to stay in chambers for a long time? That's my plan. I mean, people sent to me when I was 34 and the president was going to nominate me to be a federal judge. You're crazy. You got your whole life ahead of you to make money. And to me, you know, this privilege that I've had to serve the community and the country that welcomed my family with open arms when we came from South America, it's been the great blessing and honor of my life. And I'm really grateful that I've had this opportunity. Judge Sam Altman, good to meet you virtually on the network, and I look forward to meeting you sometime in person. Israel on trial, available at Amazon right now at Barnes & Noble.com and Bookstores Everywhere. Israel on trial by Judge Roy Sam Altman, Southern District of Florida, United States Court, District Judge. Don't go anywhere, America. I'll be right back to close up today. In 2025, the FBI reported that Americans lost more than $21 billion to fraud and identity theft. Identity thieves can steal your Social Security number, open credit accounts in your name. take over online accounts, and create financial headaches that can take months to fix. Most people don't realize they've been targeted until the damage is already done. That's why more families are turning to Aura. Aura helps protect your identity with fraud alerts, credit monitoring, dark web monitoring, and up to $5 million in identity theft protection. If something does happen, Aura's 24-7 U.S.-based support team can help guide you through the recovery process. You also get a VPN. Antivirus Protection, password manager, and scam protection, all in one app. Don't wait until you're a victim. Protect yourself and your family today. Start your free trial at Aura.com slash safe. That's Aura, A-U-R-A-com slash safe.