Judging Freedom - Prof. John J. Mearsheimer: Biden's Blank Check

Episode Date: March 27, 2024

Prof. John J. Mearsheimer: Biden's Blank CheckSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, March 27th, 2024. Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, always a pleasure, my dear friend. I know this is not your usual time, but I appreciate you making time for us in this truncated week. I want to ask you about the events at the United Nations Security Council on Monday when the U.S. abstained on a resolution calling for a ceasefire and then immediately said the resolution was non-binding out of the mouth of the ambassador and out of the mouth of Admiral Kirby. This was,

of course, the fifth resolution purporting to address this. The first three the U.S. vetoed. Then the U.S. offered one so watered down and meaningless that the Russians and Chinese vetoed it. And then someone, I don't know who offered this, you may know, but the United States abstained. So the vote was 14 to 0 to 1. Your thoughts on this, please, Professor, and whether these resolutions really mean anything. Well, normally they do. They're Security Council resolutions, which means they're binding. And of course, to get through the Security Council, you have to get by a veto by one of the big five countries, one of which, of course, is the United States, Russia and China, France and Britain are the other four, but they can veto any resolution.

And that's tied up with the fact that these are binding resolutions. They demand that, you know, in this case, that Israel respect a ceasefire. And for the administration to say shortly after abstaining on this resolution that it's non-binding. I mean, it's ludicrous. These are not non-binding resolutions. They're binding resolutions. And for a country that purports to want to support international law, it's just hard to believe that we are now making arguments that this is non-binding. But of course, what's going on here is we want our cake and eat it too. What we want to do is we want to support this resolution and show the world that we're putting pressure on Israel. But at the same time, we want to back off and let Israel do whatever it wants. And by saying it's a non-binding resolution,

that basically means the Israelis are free to ignore it. I'm going to play for you a clip of three ambassadors. They each speak for about 30 or 35 seconds, U.S., Israeli, and Palestinian. I guess the Palestinian person is referred to as an observer, but you know who he is and you've seen him. Listen to the American ambassador, Linda Thomas Greenfield, and listen to the way she says non-binding, almost sotto voce compared to the rest of her statement. Chris, the montage, please. We fully support some of the critical objectives in this non-binding resolution. And we believe it was important for the council to speak out and make clear that our ceasefire must, any ceasefire,

must come with the release of all hostages. The resolution just voted upon makes it seem as if the war started by itself. Well, let me set the record straight. Israel did not start this war nor did Israel want this war. This must be a turning point. This must lead to saving lives on the ground. This must signal the end of this assault of atrocities against our people. A nation is being murdered. A nation is being dispossessed. Which of those three statements was, if any, truthful? Well, I mean, it's exactly what you would expect. Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that it's a non-binding

resolution. It is a binding resolution, contrary to what she said. She's normally a big advocate of the rules-based order, but this is a classic case when the rules don't favor the United States or Israel. We ignore the rules, and that's what's happening here. With regard to the Israeli ambassador's comments, they're largely irrelevant. We don't care who started the war. The question is, what does the resolution say? And is Israel responsible for obeying the resolution? And the answer is yes. So I don't know what else to say about this. So what are the consequences for a member not complying with a unanimous resolution of the Security Council? Well, it'll further damage America's reputation in the world. Our legitimacy will be harmed somewhat.

Wait, because we are calling it non-binding or because the Israelis are thumbing their noses at it? Well, those two things go together. There's no question about that. And the rest of the world looks on and thinks that we are total hypocrites. And it's hard to disagree with the rest of the world in a case like this. We should have just vetoed the resolution and said that we don't accept it. But to accept the resolution, which is binding, that's the way the rules actually work. And then to say it's non-binding makes no sense to me. So the follow-up to this was Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered that his leadership team that was planning to leave Israel for the U.S. not go, and they haven't come. Now he has apparently changed his mind,

and he's asked that the invitation for them be re-offered by the Biden administration. Professor Mearsheimer, is this just a game? Because if Joe Biden wanted a ceasefire, it would just take a phone call. It wouldn't take the U.S. ambassador twisting words and denying the obvious on the floor of the Security Council. Well, as you and I have talked before, we could easily shut this war down if we wanted. But the fact is that Joe Biden does not want to shut the war down if that means that he has to put pressure on the Israelis. He's unwilling to put serious pressure on the Israelis. This incident with the binding slash non-binding resolution highlights that. The Israelis can

pretty much do whatever they want. We'll bark a lot about it, but the fact is, at the end, we're unwilling to put any serious pressure on Israel. And this is damaging America's position in the world, and it's also damaging Joe Biden's chances of getting reelected in November. When the United States seeks to send armaments and ammunition to Israel without going directly to Congress, the Secretary of State or someone on his behalf must certify to three things. One, that this is an American national security matter. Two, that it's an emergency, and three, that whoever is receiving these weapons is respecting international law. So I suggest to you that whoever signed that, and I believe it was Secretary Blinken, I don't mean to defame him from what I'm about to say,

maybe somebody else signed it, committed perjury because none of those three prerequisites is existing in this case. Do you agree with me? Yes, but it really, in the end, just doesn't matter. I mean, if it doesn't matter, what is the value of the law? Congress, the Senate debated for weeks on this resolution. I think it's named after Pat Leahy, the former, now retired, is in his 90s, longtime senator from Vermont, absolutely prohibiting American military equipment going to a country that's violating international law. And now it happens. It happens over and over and over and over again, And there are no consequences. Well, this is what almost invariably happens when you're dealing with Israel.

Israel, as some people I know say, can get away with murder. And if you look at what happened to the Liberty in 1967, there's good reason to think that that's true. So this is hardly surprising at all. There is a resolution in the Knesset offered by Itamar Ben-Gavir, one of the right-wing fanatics within Prime Minister Netanyahu's coalition, who also happens to be the head of internal security, the rough equivalent of the director of the FBI in the United States. And this resolution, if it becomes law, will immunize Israeli police when they kill Palestinians. How low can you go? Well, this just makes it de jure. De facto, they can already do that, and they have been doing it for a long time.

And if you look at what's happening in Gaza, basically what the Israelis have done is create a free fire zone. And they feel that they are at liberty to shoot anybody on the Palestinian side who was wandering around in that free-fire zone, whether they're a Hamas fighter or an innocent civilian. But again, this is just par for the course. This is what we're dealing with here. Congressman Roe Kahana, a progressive liberal from California, asked some very telling and poignant questions of the Secretary of Defense. I'm going to play a clip. You'll hear the questions. You'll hear the answers. Please remember, Professor, that Secretary Austin was under oath when he gave these answers. Chris, cut number three. Secretary Austin, last week you spoke to Defense Minister Gallant, and you said, clearly, there needs to be a plan to ensure the safety and support of those sheltering in Rafah before any military operations proceed.

National Security Advisor Sullivan has said he has not seen any plan yet. John Kirby said it would be a disaster to invade Rafah. If Netanyahu defies the United States and invades Rafah, will you commit today that you will halt any future military sales to Israel? Obviously, sir, that's a presidential decision. But, you know, we expect that – and, by the way, I spoke to Minister Gallant last night. And I expect that when we provide munitions to allies and partners, that they'll use them in a responsible way. But would you make a commitment that they defy what we're saying and they violate international law? By the way, which is opposed to National Security Memorandum 18 and National Security Memorandum 20, that if they don't do what we're saying,

that we would halt those arm sales or transfers. Again, the decision to halt the provision of security assistance would not be mine. It would be... What would you recommend? Well, I certainly, again, I really do expect that they utilize the weapons that we provide them in a responsible way. And then if they don't— I just want to, for time purposes, it seems to me if they're defying what you're telling them, what Kirby's telling them, what Sullivan's telling them, that wouldn't be responsible. How can he—I know you're not a shrink. You're a professor of international relations and one of the world's foremost. But how can he possibly say from what he has seen that he would expect, quote, that they'll use the weapons in a responsible way? Again, that they'll utilize the weapons we provide them in a responsible way when he can see what's happening.

I don't want to get Ro Khanna in trouble, but just for the record, he was an undergraduate here at the University of Chicago, and he was my student. Okay, you're not getting him in trouble. I'm sure his questions were so brilliant because he learned from a brilliant professor. I wouldn't go that far. I think he's pretty brilliant on his own. He doesn't need me. Alan Dershowitz once told me that Ted Cruz was the most brilliant student he ever taught, even though he doesn't believe a word that comes out of Senator Cruz's mouth today. But another funny story to discuss at another time. Well, the fact is that I believe Austin does not expect them, the Israelis, to play ball with the administration. But he's not going to say that.

I mean, one of the real problems for any policymaker dealing with the Israelis is you can't be honest about what they're doing and what you think they should be doing. And are they the only country in the world with which we have regular, consistent, systematic relations where we can't be publicly honest about what they're doing? Absolutely. I mean, we have a special relationship with Israel that bears no resemblance to any relationship between any two countries in the history of the world. We give Israel unconditional support, especially when it comes to dealing with the Palestinians. We do not treat Israel like a normal country, which is the way we treat almost every other country on the planet. It's truly remarkable, because as I've said before on this show, no two countries have the same

interests. So there are going to be situations where our interests clash with Israel's interests. And in those situations, the United States invariably follows Israel's interests, not our own interests. And that, of course, is because of the power of the Israel lobby inside the United States. What is your take two or three weeks later of the statement by Senator Schumer on the floor of the Senate, which now appears he ran past AIPAC and other members of the Israel lobby. Was this pretty much just a political charade? I think that's too strong. I think that what Schumer is deeply worried about is that support for Israel has eroded inside of the Democratic Party. And in fact, I just saw a recent poll that said 75%,

75% of Democrats disapprove of what Israel is doing in Gaza. That's quite remarkable. And this is an election year. And Schumer is deeply concerned about controlling the Senate after November. And he's deeply concerned about making sure that Joe Biden gets reelected. So what he's trying to do, and the administration is trying to do, is put very subtle pressure on Israel to get it to change its behavior and to show that the administration and people like Chuck Schumer are doing their best to shut down this genocide. And they think that will help them in the fall to make sure that the Republicans don't capture the Senate and the House and the White House as well. The fact is, if you're going

to get the Israelis to change their behavior, you have to use the coercive leverage that we have, and we refuse to do that. So in the end, Chuck Schumer ends up looking like a milquetoast. At first, it looks like he's a real tough guy, but then when you stand back and look at what the consequences are of what he said and what he actually said, it just doesn't matter much in the end, and the Israelis will thumb their noses at us. Do you think that Joe Biden, Tony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, Jake Sullivan, I want to keep going down the totem pole, run the risk of being prosecuted by a future regime, whether it's a Trump administration or fill-in-the-blank administration or an international prosecution for funding war crimes? I think it's probably likely that some

court will go after them. I don't think the Trump administration would go after them on this issue because Trump is committed to Israel as Biden is, but I would not be surprised if they face problems in some court somewhere in the future. Because as we've said before here, they are complicit in a genocide. Yes. Transitioning to Moscow, you are a graduate of West Point. You are a veteran of the United States Air Force. I suppose you're also a veteran of the Army from the times you spent at West Point. But the point is, you understand the way government works. You understand the way intelligence communities work. Is it reasonable to believe that CIA and MI6 had some foreknowledge of this attack on the Moscow concert hall last Friday night?

Well, it seems quite clear that they had some foreknowledge. I mean, we know that the U.S. issued a warning of a possible terrorist attack on March 7th. And that warning, which I've looked at, talks about a possible attack at a concert. And of course, what happened later that month was at a concert. So we suspected something. It's almost impossible to tell, given what's in the public record at this point in time, exactly what we expected, who we thought was going to launch this terror attack, and how we knew about it. It's also not clear whether we told the Russians, although surely the Russians listened to what we had to say on March 7th. But it's quite remarkable that we expected on March 7th a terrorist attack, possibly on a concert, and then this happened a few weeks later.

And if I were the Russians, I'd be very suspicious about what the Americans were up to. Well, the head of the Russian FSB, Alexander, I've got his name here somewhere, forgive me, too many papers all at once, who rarely speaks in public, Alexander Bortnikov, told Russia Today when he was asked if the U.S., Britain, and Ukraine were involved. Russia Today is the name of the media outlet. He made the statement yesterday. The answer was, we think that this is so. Now, this is a guy who rarely speaks in public, and it's inconceivable that he would say something that President Putin disagreed with.

Does the hierarchy of the Russian government believe that Britain, the United States, and Ukraine were involved in this or deliberately indifferent to it? If that is the case, I think this is rather serious, don't you? Well, he does use the word think, which is conditional. So it's not clear what evidence they have and whether they think they have hard evidence or just circumstantial evidence. So, you know, it's very hard for me to comment on whether it's true or not. There are a number of telltale signs that make you think that we might have known that the Ukrainians were behind this before it happened. But is that for sure? Absolutely not, just because the information is so sketchy. I mean, I think what's happened here, if you follow this closely on the internet, as I've tried to do, it's quite clear that the

Russians have pretty much figured out what happened in terms of the terrorist attack and the terrorist attempt to escape and who the terrorists are. But what exactly the connections are, they've not put out enough information so that I think one can feel confident that he or she knows exactly what the links are between the terrorists on one hand and Ukraine and the West on the other hand. Transitioning but staying with the Russia and Ukraine issue, Professor Mearsheimer, President Macron of France is again making noise. 2,000 troops, 20,000 troops, 2,000 troops. He got 20,000 troops ready to send to Romania to train with other foreign troops.

How dangerous is this kind of language? And if he does send French troops to Ukraine, whether it's 2,000 or 20,000, does he expect that President Putin will not shoot at them and try and kill them? He almost has to know that Putin is going to put his gun sights or the Russians are going to put their gun sights on those troops and try to shoot them up. So I don't think that Macron thinks that he's getting a free ride here. I find it hard to believe that Macron will get away with this. I mean, first of all, the Russians clearly have the upper hand against 2,000 French troops put into Ukraine. Furthermore, the Americans, I believe, will go to great lengths to make sure the French don't do that. France is a part of NATO, and the idea of NATO troops being shot up and us

having to stand on the sidelines is not an attractive option at all. But Macron continues to talk like this. I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of it is. If it's for domestic political purposes, maybe that makes sense. But he's not doing much good for NATO and for the Ukrainians by making these threats. Isn't he risking World War III, particularly if he sends 20,000 troops there and they get shot at and killed? I think the chances of that happening are very small, but I think it would be all for the good if he did not do that. I mean, the problem that we face here is that this war is showing signs of escalating. I've always believed that when it became clear that one side or the other was losing, the losing side would have a powerful temptation to escalate. I've long argued

that if we were successful at defeating the Russians in Ukraine, that was the most likely scenarios for nuclear weapons being used. The other really dangerous situation is if Ukraine loses, which of course is now happening, that the West will be tempted to intervene. And if the West intervenes, and this would, of course, include the United States, then you have a great power war. And then the possibility of nuclear use, again, goes way back up. And I think we want to avoid this at all costs. But what's happening here, one, with this terrorist attack on March 22nd, and now with Macron talking about putting French troops into Ukraine, you can see things beginning to subtly ratchet up. And there's a real danger that at some point things will spin out of control. Will the West allow Ukraine to lose?

Because it appears as though it's on life support at this point. Well, there's not much we can do to prevent it. I mean, what's going to determine the outcome in this war is the balance of forces between the two sides. And there's no question that the balance now clearly favors the Russians. And with the passage of time, it favors the Russians even more. So the Russians are going to win an ugly victory here. The only interesting question is how much of Ukraine they end up conquering. But I believe they will conquer more than 20%, which is roughly what they have now.

And in the end, Ukraine will be a dysfunctional, state. Then the question comes up that you raise, what will we do? Will we basically accept this new status quo and try to work out some sort of modus vivendi with the Russians? I doubt it. I think what we'll do is we'll continue to do everything we can to undermine Russia's position in Ukraine, and the potential for escalation for years to come will be ever present. As I've said to you before, I think we are in deep trouble in Ukraine, and I see no sign of the situation improving anytime soon. Do you, from your knowledge of the interaction of the heads of state, believe that President Macron would send those troops in there unilaterally? Or would he run it past his colleague, the heads of state in Great Britain, Germany, the United States? Well, he'd definitely have to run it by his own colleagues, his advisors. I mean, the foreign minister, the defense minister.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about other countries. In other words, if Joe Biden says, Emmanuel, what are you crazy? Is he going to do it anyway? I don't think so. Because I think in that case, we would use coercive leverage to prevent him from doing that. We would go to considerable lengths to make sure he did not do that. Because you're beginning to talk about getting the United States into a great power war that it does not want to get into. I mean, for all my criticism of Joe Biden, I think that by and large, he's been quite sensible on the dangers of escalation in Ukraine. He's gone to great lengths to make sure that this one does not spin out of control. And again, as we were talking about a few

minutes ago, if you talk about putting French troops into Ukraine, the potential for going up the escalation ladder is very great. And Biden does not want that, especially since we're in deep trouble in the war in the Middle East, the war in Gaza. And furthermore, we have to be deeply concerned about events in China. The idea that we're going to get into a great power war in Ukraine is not something that Biden wants to do. So I think that we would put great coercive, we would use our coercive leverage to get Macron not to unilaterally deploy troops in Ukraine. The next time we're together, which will be next week after Easter, I do want to talk to you about

China and what American troops are doing on the little island off the coast of Taiwan. But that's just a little teaser for you and for your fans and for our viewers that we'll talk about next week. Although God knows what kind of calamity will happen between now and then that will divert our attention. But Professor Mearsheimer, always a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for changing your time to accommodate our schedule. Happy Easter to you and your family. And happy Easter to you.

Thank you. Thank you. Coming up tomorrow, we have a very interesting day for you since we are dark on Good Friday. At 11 o'clock, Scott Ritter, his research on the attacks in Moscow at one o'clock by popular request. Ask the judge. You can email me whatever question you want about the subjects that we discuss on air or about the Constitution at two o'clock.

Colonel Larry Wilkerson at three o'clock. Kyle Anzalone at four o'clock. Happy end ofkerson, at 3 o'clock, Kyle Anzalone, at 4 o'clock, happy, end of the week, even though it's a Thursday, the boys, the Intelligence Community Roundtable with Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern. For now, Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Thanks for watching.