Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer: Does US Want War?

Episode Date: October 3, 2024

Prof. John Mearsheimer: Does US Want War?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself? Talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace.

Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences, and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule, wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship,

or if you want some counseling for you and your partner, or just need a little extra one-on-one support, Talkspace is here for you. Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance? No problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com.

Save $80 with code SPACE80 at Talkspace.com. Thanks for watching! Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, October 3rd, 2024. Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. My dear friend, professore, it's always a pleasure. Thank you very much for joining us. No matter what we talk about and what we're going to discuss is not happy news for the American people or anybody in the West or anybody who believes in natural rights and morality. Let's start with the latest in Israel. Is it your view that the retaliation by Iran toward Israel, ostensibly for the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, which was ordered from either a hotel room or an office in the UN in the United States by Prime Minister Netanyahu himself, was a message only or was an effective hit on military and intelligence targets in Israel? I think it was a very effective hit. Most people in the West, and certainly in Israel, when you hear them talk about what happened with the October 1st attack, is they say it was a

failure, and it shows that Iran is playing a very weak hand. I think that's not the way to look at it. I think people are not thinking strategically about this whole issue. What you want to understand is that Israel and Iran are engaged in a competition that involves assassinations and it involves bombing strikes against each other's assets. And in that competition, it looked like Israel had the upper hand up until October 1st. This is two days ago. Because you want to remember that the Iranians had promised that they were going to strike in the wake of the July 31st assassination of the Hamas leader in Tehran. The Iranians had said that they were going to respond and strike, and they did not in all of August, and they did not in all of September. And it looked like the Iranians were very weak. And then, of course, last Friday, the Israelis assassinated Nasrallah, who was obviously a close ally of Iran.

And Iran did not do anything. So it looked like the Israelis were in the driver's seat and the Iranians were weak. that they attacked or they counterattacked or they retaliated against Israel on October 1st with 180 ballistic missiles, a good number of which got through and did some damage. But that's not the important point. The important point is they retaliated and they have told the Israelis that we expect you to retaliate, but you want to understand if you retaliate, we are going to counter-retaliate. So what the Iranians are now doing is taking the Israelis up the escalation ladder. See, the Israelis thought they had won. They had, in effect, neutered the Iranians. The Iranians were not going to retaliate, but that's no longer the case. Now, you want to ask yourself

the big question, what happens when you go up the escalation ladder? Before we go up, before we talk about that, do you have a handle, Professor Mearsheimer, on the damage done by the Iranian retaliation? Was it symbolic or substantive or something else? It appears that there was some damage done to a handful of airfields, of Israeli airfields or air bases. Can we state with certainty that while the Israelis aim at civilian populations, the Iranians have aimed at military and intelligence facilities. Yes. There's no question that the Iranians' attack on October 1st was aimed at military targets. And in fact, the reports are that only one person was killed, and it was a Palestinian on the West Bank who was killed by falling debris. So there's no question that the Iranians are not launching punishment attacks against

Israeli civilians. There's no question about that. And all one has to do is look at what's going on in Beirut today and in southern Lebanon and in Gaza to understand fully. Okay. You had begun, before I interrupted you, Professor, you were kind enough to allow me to do it, you had begun to talk about the escalation ladder, which I assume involves the United States. Yeah, well, the United States and Israel are joined at the hip. There's no question about that. When you talk about the attack going back to April 14th, when that's the first time the Iranians struck Israel, the United States played a key role in fending off those

Iranian missiles and drones that were coming at Israel. And on October 1st, two days ago, the United States clearly again played a clear role in fending off the Iranian attack. And I would be willing to bet a considerable amount of money that moving forward that the United States will support Israel militarily in its various attacks against Iran and in defending Israel against attacks from Iran. But look, the point we want to keep our eye on here is that you're going up the escalation ladder. You just do not want to lose sight of what the Iranians did on October 1st. They put us on the escalation ladder. The Israelis are now going to retaliate, and the Iranians have said they're going to counter-retaliate. And of course, the Israelis will probably counter-counter-retaliate.

And you want to ask yourself, where is this going? And it's very important to understand that the Israelis are talking about going after two sets of targets. Whether they do now or later is hard to say, or whether they ever do. But those two sets of targets are, one, the nuclear facilities of Iran, and number two, their oil fields and their oil refineries. And you want to understand that the Iranians have said, they've said it very clearly, that if our oil fields and our refineries are attacked, we will go against oil refineries and oil fields throughout the Middle East. This would have a catastrophic effect on the world

economy. It's a quasi-nuclear option that the Iranians have. So you want to understand that as we're going up the escalation ladder here, it could lead to a catastrophe. Go ahead. No, go ahead. How precarious and isolated is Israel now, given the following? Iran and Russia are about to enter into, in the next three weeks, a mutual defense pact. The Kremlin has publicly warned Prime Minister Netanyahu to stay out of Lebanon. The Russian ambassador to Israel has publicly warned Russian citizens in Israel to leave Israel. President Putin has, the Kremlin has leaked

that President Putin has declined to take a phone call from Prime Minister Netanyahu, notwithstanding the persistence with which he requested one. What do all those things tell? And one other thing, the Russian naval ships in the Mediterranean intercepted 13 Israeli missiles aimed for Lebanon. Maybe they were coming a little too close to the Russian Navy. How do you view all that? Well, a number of points. First of all, the United States and Israel are joined at the hip, as I've said on many occasions. And the Russians and the Iranians, this is my second point, have come to understand that there's no appeasing the United States or Israel. You have to play hardball with them. If you think you can be nice to the United States and to Israel and they'll work out some sort of accommodation with you. You're living in a dream world. So what this means is that the Russians and the Iranians are coming closer and closer together. And by the way, that alliance includes the Chinese and the

North Koreans as well, right? Because they all understand that they're under threat from the United States. So they're coming closer together. And furthermore, as I just said, they all understand that you have to play hardball with the United States and with Israel. And that's what's going on here. And this is a remarkably dangerous situation because, as I said a few minutes ago, the Israelis and the Iranians are on the escalation ladder. And where this all ends is very hard to say. And now what you're adding to the mixture is the fact that the Russians are beginning to assert their influence in the Middle East. And the time of the ordering, and they even took pictures of him doing it, the ordering of the assassination of Nasrallah to the ordering of the land invasion of Lebanon as reckless. In my opinion, what he's doing in Lebanon is reckless. And it's very

important that the viewers understand that we're now switching gears and moving away from the recklessness associated with the Iran-Israeli conflict to now looking at what Israel is doing in Lebanon. The decapitation of Nasrallah is not going to produce any positive effects on the outcome from Israel's perspective. The idea that decapitation is a way of winning this war in Lebanon is not a serious argument. The Israelis have been decapitating Palestinian leaders and Hezbollah leaders for a long time, and it doesn't do anything. It just doesn't have any meaningful consequence. Furthermore, with regard to invading southern Lebanon, this is a guaranteed way to fail. Hezbollah is not going away. There's all this talk about remaking the Middle East. After Nasrallah was assassinated

last Friday, Israel and all its supporters in the United States were feeling their oats and talking about this great opportunity that's presented itself to remake the Middle East, and all we have to do is just keep using that big stick and it'll all turn out with a happy ending. This is crazy, right? They're not going to solve the problem in Lebanon. Hezbollah is not going away. Hamas is not going away. By the way, we haven't talked about what's going on in Gaza, but as you well know, they have not decisively defeated Hamas. They've not even come close. They've not rescued the hostages. And then we go back to Iran. Here we are on the escalation ladder, and God knows where that will end. So this is, in my opinion, a remarkably

foolish set of policies that Netanyahu is pursuing, and we're going along with them. Professor Gilbert Doctorow made an interesting argument this morning, one that I hadn't heard of, but I thought of you immediately. You'll know why I thought of you when I do my best to describe his argument. He likened the relationship of the United States to Iran, Iran, a vassal state being used to fight an American war against Russia, to the United States with Israel, Israel, a vassal state being used by the United States to kill Arabs in the Middle East. I pressed him, arguing that he has the cart before the horse on Israel and the United States, but he stood steadfast on his argument and is probably watching now because he knows

that you are likely to be the principal opponent of this argument, unless I misunderstand him or misunderstand you. So basically he's saying Biden and company control Netanyahu rather than Netanyahu and company controlling Biden. Yeah, it's a familiar argument. And it was an argument that some people used against me and Steve Walt when we wrote the Israel Lobby article and then the book. In fact, I have a correspondence with both Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, both of whom I have great respect for on this very issue. And both Norman and Noam Chomsky believe the argument that Gilbert is making. So there are a number of people in the land who make that argument. I think they're dead wrong. And the reason I think

they're dead wrong is if you look at U.S.-Israeli relations over time, there is just a huge amount of evidence that Israel and the United States were at loggerheads on different issues. Not always. Sometimes they had a common interest in pursuing the same policy, but there were many times in the history of the U.S.-Israeli relationship where we were pushing in one direction and the Israelis were pushing in another direction. And I think the evidence is overwhelming that Israel won almost every time, not every time in the early years, but almost every time. And it was because of the power of the lobby. And all you have to do is look at what happened when Benjamin Netanyahu came to speak to Congress recently. And look at all his previous

experiences before Congress. The U.S. Senate and the U.S. House act like lapdogs. And you sort of have to ask yourself, why is that the case? Is it because this country is doing our bidding and it's pursuing policies that are in the American national interest? I don't think so. Why did we roll over when Israeli fighter jets attacked and destroyed the USS Liberty, an American surveillance ship in the high seas, and killed 34 sailors and injured 300 more? It was the power of the lobby, pure and simple. And if there was any president who was a prisoner of the lobby, it was LBJ. There's just no question about that.

JFK was a tough customer for the lobby. But JFK, of course, was assassinated and he was replaced by Lyndon Johnson. And Lyndon Johnson, I believe, is principally responsible for looking the other way and allowing Israel to acquire a nuclear deterrent. JFK was deeply interested in making sure Israel did not acquire nuclear weapons. I know you're a political philosopher, though you're a realist, and you're not a shrink, but why do you think John Bolton, Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton just want to kill Arabs, whether the Americans do it or the Israelis do it for us? I don't know. There's no question that they are deeply committed to using American military power all around the world. And if it involves killing large numbers of Arabs, large numbers of Palestinians,

or seeing the Israelis do that, they have no problem with it at all. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they divide the world into good guys and bad guys. And we're the good guys. The Israelis are the good guys and bad guys. And we're the good guys. The Israelis are the good guys. And the other here, and I put the other in quote marks, the other is the bad guys. Here's John Bolton yesterday, Professor Mearsheimer, on this very subject. It's a little nuanced because he's talking about whether they can put nuclear material in the missiles that they already have, whether those missiles are equipped for nuclear material or not.

But you'll get the essence of what he's saying. Chris, cut number six. It's very likely that the nuclear program could be a target for several reasons. First, this is something that Prime Minister Netanyahu, beyond any other Israeli politician, has recognized as the existential threat for Israel. And I think people should understand that with now 300-some ballistic missiles having been fired at Israel since April, they have to worry that the next time they see a ballistic

missile aimed at them, it could contain a nuclear weapon under a nose cone. So that is a motivation to solve the nuclear problem now. I'd make a couple of points. First of all, they can develop fissile material in a couple of weeks. There's no question about that. But turning that fissile material into a bomb and equipping a ballistic missile so that it could carry that nuclear weapon to any distant country would take them, I would imagine, two years or more. It's not an easy task. Okay. But my point in running John Bolton is, is that kind of argument going to resonate? We know it'll resonate in Tel Aviv.

Will it resonate in Washington? It will resonate in Washington up to an extent. I mean, at first glance, the idea of going after Iran's nuclear capabilities sounds really attractive. If you listen to the likes of John Bolton, the argument is we can go in there and we can deal with the threat once and for all, and then we don't have to worry about it anymore. This is not true. There's no question that the United States and Israel, Israel alone I don't think can do it, but the United States and Israel together can go in, and I think by and large eliminate most of Iran's nuclear capabilities at this point in time. But almost everybody I know

believes that the Iranians will be able to reconstitute that capability, and they'll do it in a way where it's impossible for us to attack it once again. And the end result is they will get nuclear weapons, and they will be mad as hornets. And the question you have to ask yourself is, do you want to live in that kind of world? You want to remember that people like John Bolton were in favor of pulling out of the JCPOA. That was the arms agreement that we had with the Iranians. And the end result of that is that now Iran has enough enriched uranium that in two, three weeks time, they'll have enough fissile material for a bomb. That would not have happened

if we remained in the JCPOA and moreover had tried to improve our relations with Iran. But the opposite happened, mainly because of pressure from Israel and its allies in the United States, people like John Bolton. And President Trump caving to that pressure. Absolutely. He was the one who made this fool. Right, right. If the United States aids Iran and does what John Bolton wants, do you expect Russia to enter the picture militarily? And if Russia enters militarily,

will China? I don't think China will. With regard to Russia, it's not clear what exactly the Russians would do. I think the Russians would not engage in the fighting. I think that'd be just too dangerous. And plus, they're deeply involved in a war in Ukraine. And the last thing they want to do is end up in a war with the United States over Iran. I think they'll definitely help Iran to defend itself by giving it weapons and giving it as much diplomatic support as possible. But, you know, again, you want to think about international politics in terms of a long game. And whether the Russians help the Iranians in the actual fight is one thing. But the question is, what does this mean over the long term?

And I think what it means over the long term is that the Russians will go to great lengths to help the Iranians. And if the Iranians decide that they are going to acquire nuclear weapons, it is likely that the Russians will look the other way. Absent all of what's going on now, the Russians and the Americans would have worked together to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And this is clear with regard to the JCPOA. When we negotiated the JCPOA, there was no question that the Russians were deeply involved and the Russians did not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Back to the Doctorow thesis. If Israel fights Iran, Iran fights Israel. We back Israel, Russia backs Iran. Is this a proxy war, Russia against the United States through Iran and Israel? It's getting very difficult to refer to what's going on in the Middle East as a proxy war,

in large part because the United States is so deeply involved with Israel. It almost looks like they're operating together in Gaza, operating together in Lebanon, and operating together vis-a-vis the Houthis and Iran. We're getting dragged deeper and deeper into this, and it's therefore hard to make the case that the Israelis are our proxies. It's the two of us joined at the head. from Julian Assange in this clip, which is the first public statement he made since his appearance in an American courtroom in the Mariana Islands. You know, I'm a legal scholar. I didn't know there was a federal court

in the Mariana Islands, but there is. It's a very strong statement in which he accuses the CIA of horrific behavior. At the end of the statement, I'm going to ask you if his accusations are credible, meaning does the American government do these kinds of things? Sonia, cut number two. He revealed the CIA's vast production of malware and viruses, its subversion of supply chains. It's a version of antivirus software, cars, smart TVs and iPhones. CIA Director Pompeo launched a campaign of retribution. It is now a matter of public record that under Pompeo's explicit direction, the CIA drew up plans

to kidnap and to assassinate me within the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and authorised going after my European colleagues, subjecting us to theft, hacking attacks and the planting of false information. My wife and my infant son were also targeted. A CIA asset was permanently assigned to track my wife and instructions were given to obtain DNA from my six-month-old son's nappy. This is the testimony of more than 30 current and former US intelligence officials speaking to the US press, which has been additionally corroborated by records seized in a prosecution brought against some of the CIA agents involved.

The CIA's targeting of myself, my family and my associates through aggressive extrajudicial and extraterritorial means provides a rare insight into how powerful intelligence organizations engage in transnational repression. Such repressions are not unique. What is unique is that we know so much about this one due to numerous whistleblowers and to judicial investigations in Spain. Just to put Spain in perspective, a Spanish magistrate has indicted former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney for war crimes, and they're unable to travel to any EU country because of arrest warrants.

Before you respond to that one more clip, it's much shorter. It's former American Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo making some admissions, not specific, but general. Sonia, cut number, Chris, number, cut number 23. I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. Does the CIA do the types of things that Julian Assange has accused them of doing? Of course they do. It's an open and shut case. Intelligence agencies associated with great powers do this stuff all the time. There's a book called The Brothers by Stephen Kinzer, which deals with Alan Dulles,

who was the head of the CIA in the 1950s, and his brother, John Foster Dulles. And your viewers who have any questions about this, want to read Steve Kinzer's book. Again, it's called The Brothers. And just look at what the CIA was doing in the 1950s. It's really, truly amazing. It's remarkable that there's no transparency. The American public just doesn't know the horrific things that the government does in its name and with its tax dollars. was exposing what was going on. And there are other platforms that are exposing what is going on. And there are whistleblowers as well. And this is a huge problem for the CIA. This is why they landed on Julian Assange like a ton of bricks. I mean, Julian Assange is an existential threat to the CIA. This is what Pompeo is motivated by. It's this logic. You know, I thought I had told one of my last conversations with him in the White House

when President Trump called me to review, I've stated this before, to review pardons and commutations. This is after January 6th, but before January 20th, the last two weeks of his time in office, I thought I had talked him into pardoning Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. He told me he was going to do it. Eventually, he didn't. And I've often believed that Mike Pompeo is the one who talked him out of it. Who knows? It's just a belief that I have, but it's consistent with what you've just commented on. Yeah. I mean, it's a tragic situation, but we're now in a world where it's increasingly difficult for the CIA and groups like that to operate covertly over the long term, because

there are all sorts of people who are trying to expose them. And this causes them enormous problems. By the way, this is a more general problem for the administration. The administration peddles all this nonsense about what's going on in the world and who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. But you have all these platforms like your show where you have responsible and reasonable people who are well-informed, who point out to large audiences that what the government is saying is not true. And what's happening here is more and more Americans believe this. This is why people like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump,

who would have never been serious presidential candidates in 1990 or 1980, are serious presidential candidates in the contemporary world. It's because people don't trust the so-called establishment anymore. And both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are not part of the mainstream, not part of the establishment. And lots of people are not part of the mainstream, not part of the establishment. And lots of people are fed up with the establishment and they're willing to vote for these guys. One of those very well-informed, highly regarded guests who helps inform the public, of course, is you, Professor Amir Sharma. You always draw a huge audience, as you have done today and will continue to do as this is posted. We're not only on YouTube, we're on X, Facebook, and Rumble, and people see us all over the world and write to me from all over the world. And you probably are unaccustomed to this phrase because you teach in

one of the most sophisticated academic environments in the world, but you are a fan favorite. We have to have another Italian dinner together, maybe in Chicago this time. Thank you, Professor Mearsheimer. You're more than welcome. We'll see you next week. I'll be in China next week. Oh, that's right. You'll be away. Well, maybe we can find you in China. If we can't, we'll see you when you return.

I will do my best to help you find me, but I can't guarantee anything. And if you come upon information that would be of interest to the Judging Freedom audience, you know how to get it out. I certainly do. Thank you, Professor Mearsheimer. Safe travels. All the best. Thank you much. as we watch and analyze in ways that mainstream media, which employed me for 24 years, actually longer than that, if you count the places where I worked before Fox, is not interested in doing.

Please continue to like and subscribe. We broke 450,000. We're on our way to a half million by Christmas, but Christmas is coming. Tomorrow, Friday, the boys, the Intelligence Community Roundtable, Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern at 4 o'clock Eastern, and at 5 o'clock Eastern, the somewhat apologetic but fierce as ever and always worth waiting for, Max Blumenthal.

Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. I'm