Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer: Is Lebanon a Threat to Israel?

Episode Date: September 26, 2024

Prof. John Mearsheimer: Is Lebanon a Threat to Israel?See 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 Thursday, September 26, 2024. Our dear friend, Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, thank you very much for your time. Professor Mearsheimer, does Lebanon pose a threat to Israel? Well, it doesn't pose a threat in the sense that the Hezbollah forces can attack and conquer Israel. It poses a threat in the sense that Hezbollah has probably 150,000 to 200,000 rockets and missiles that can hit Israel. And since October 8th, the day after the Hamas forces attacked the Israelis in Gaza. Since the day after that, Hamas, I mean, excuse me, Hezbollah has been raining missiles on northern Israel. And this has driven approximately 60,000 Israelis out of their homes in northern Israel. And they're now

located in central Israel, and they're itching to get back to the north. But they can't because the missiles continue, or excuse me, the rockets continue to hit northern Israel. So in that sense, Hezbollah is a threat to Israel. But it's, again, not a threat to conquer the country. It's not an existential threat. Is Hezbollah a threat to the United States of America? Not at all. It's not even an interesting question. Would anything Hezbollah does justify American ground troops? Absolutely not. Are American ground troops combat ready to join the IDF, should they be so requested, to participate in a land invasion of Lebanon? I think that they're probably combat ready. I don't

think there's much question about that. As you know, the United States has a lot of experience fighting wars in recent decades, so the troops would be combat ready. But the idea that American forces, coupled with Israeli forces, would quickly overrun Hezbollah and we and the Israelis would win a decisive victory is not the way this one would play itself out. We'd be jumping into a hornet's nest. And it's for that reason that I think it's highly unlikely that we would send ground forces into southern Lebanon. In fact, I really have doubts about whether the Israelis will do that. They talk a lot about it, and they may ultimately do it. It's very hard to tell exactly what they're thinking. But I'd be surprised in large part because they'll be jumping into a hornet's nest. They know this past experience.

Would it, it would be indeed reckless of the Israelis to conduct a ground invasion into Lebanon, would it not? Well, as you know, recklessness is their specialty. So that's why we shouldn't be surprised if they did it. I mean, the Israelis since October 7th have not been pursuing a smart policy towards Hamas or towards Hezbollah or towards Iran for that matter. But we've come to expect that from Israel. Can Israel wage a successful war? And I don't know what successful means. I guess it's however Benjamin Netanyahu wants to define it at the moment, without American aid against Hezbollah. No. First of all, with American aid, they cannot wage a successful war against either Hamas or Hezbollah. You want to remember that Benjamin Netanyahu set out what is the principal criterion for success in Gaza, and that is defeating Hamas. And he had massive American support, and he's been at it for almost a year now, and Hamas is not defeated. It's alive and well. And with regard to Hezbollah, I don't know anybody

who seriously argues that the Israelis can decisively defeat Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a more formidable adversary than Hamas is. And even if the Israelis were to invade with American help and do massive damage to Hezbollah, they would come back to fight another day, just as Hamas has come back to fight another day. So in a very important way, what Benjamin Netanyahu is doing here is tilting at windmills. So other than continuing a war to extend his tenure in office to avoid the legal consequences that will likely befall him once he's out of office, and notwithstanding the loss of life in the IDF and the probable loss of the lives of the hostages, what is Benjamin Netanyahu accomplishing by these wars? Well, I think there are two arguments that can be made here. One is that what he is doing in Gaza by continuing the war is that he is attempting to make the place unlivable and make it clear to

everybody that it's going to remain unlivable, all for the purposes of ethnic cleansing the Palestinians in Gaza. It's very important to understand that's his ultimate goal. It's not just to destroy Hamas. What he wants to do is drive the Palestinians out of Gaza. And of course, he eventually wants to drive him out of the West Bank as well. So the reason I believe that he is not willing to cut a deal in regard to or with regard to Gaza is in good part because he wants to cleanse it. Now, with regard to Hezbollah, I think that what he's really hoping to do there is to drag the Iranians and the Americans in. As you and I have talked about on a number of occasions, he's desperate to start a war between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other side. He's taken major actions to try to precipitate this war in the past, and he's been unsuccessful. And I think he believes that if he can drag us into a war against Hezbollah and then the Iranians come in to help Hezbollah, then he has the war involving the United States and Iran that he wants.

So I think that is the logic that is driving him with regard to both Hamas and Hezbollah. General Carrillo, who's the commander of CENTCOM, made two visits to Israel last week. And according to Colonel Wilkerson, was rebuffed by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who declined. Imagine this, with all the aid we're giving them and the commanding general wants to see him. Prime Minister Netanyahu declined to see General Carrillo. He reported it to the Defense Department. They told him to get back there the second time he did see him.

And again, according to sources that communicated with Colonel Wilkerson, he stated to the effect that we'll defend you if you're under a serious threat, but if you go into Lebanon, you're going in on your own. Does that make sense to you? Well, it makes eminently good strategic sense. And I want to be clear here. I hope that that's what the general told Netanyahu. it makes sense politically for the Biden administration to give him permission to be so stark in his comments with Netanyahu is another matter. So from a political point of view, I'd be surprised. I mean, as you know, no American leader ever gets really tough with

the Israelis, but maybe it happened this time. Who knows? You can't foresee, or can you, American ground troops, this is a different question from the one I asked earlier, being sent into battle to fight Hezbollah? I find that hard to imagine. I can see us using air power and naval power, and certainly our air defense capabilities for purposes of helping fend off an Iranian missile attack on Israel. I can see us participating there. And as you and I have talked about, we did that on April 14th. So that's certainly in the cards. But sending ground forces in is a whole different story. And I wouldn't be surprised if General Cavallo told Netanyahu that we're not sending

ground forces into Lebanon. That's a bridge too far. What is the origin of the violence between Hezbollah and the IDF and Israel? Well, it basically stems back to 1982. The PLO, Palestinian Liberation Organization, was located in Lebanon. They had left Jordan, they had moved to Lebanon in large numbers, and there were large numbers of Palestinians living in southern Lebanon. And the Israelis invaded in 1982 for the purpose of driving the Palestinians north and actually driving Yasser Arafat out of Beirut, which they succeeded in doing. When they first went in, the Shia in southern Lebanon welcomed them with open arms. The Shia were glad to see the Israelis. They were happy to see them push the Palestinians to the north. But what happened

is the Israelis overstayed their welcome. They were there from 1982 to 2000. That's 18 years in southern Lebanon. The Israelis were occupying southern Lebanon. The Shia who initially welcomed them, the Israelis, turned on them. And they created an organization called Hezbollah. There was no Hezbollah in 1982 when the Israelis went in. And again, the Shia were glad to have them there. But by 2000, 18 years later, when the Israelis left, they had a mortal enemy. And it was the Shia and the organizations they had created

with Hezbollah. There was also a territorial dispute between Hezbollah on one side and the Israelis on the other. And it's an area that's adjacent to the Golan Heights called Sheba Farms. And the Israelis basically own it at this point in time. And the Palestinians, excuse me, Hezbollah believes that it should be taken back. Is this where the Israeli settlers were who have since been driven down into central Israel and who are driving Netanyahu crazy because they want to go home? No, I don't think so. I think there may be some, but I think most of them are further to the west. But I'd have to look at the location of all the people who lived in northern Israel and on the Golan Heights before I could tell you exactly how many have been driven out of the Golan Heights area and how many have been driven out. Yeah, there's a good map that shows the Sheba farms. That's the principal territorial point of contention between Hezbollah on one side, or more generally, Lebanon

on one side and Israel on the other. As you know, the point of contention regarding the Golan Heights involves Syria versus Israel. So you see the difference. Syria and Israel dispute the Golan Heights. And of course, that territory belongs to Syria. And the Sheba Farms is mainly an issue between Lebanon and Israel, and not just Lebanon, but Hezbollah as well. And does the map show where the 60,000 Israeli settlers formerly resided before they were chased down into central Israel? I think they're mainly on what's called the blue line there that runs from Gaza up in the north, the sort of center of the map, out to the Mediterranean Sea on the far left. I think most of the residents who have moved to the center of Israel come from there. The settlers would be on the Golan Heights. I'm not sure you would call the people in northern Israel settlers.

They've been there for a long time. And I think those are mainly the people who have been moved southward. I don't think it involves the Golan Heights or the Sheba Farms in large part. When Senator Lindsey Graham says that Hezbollah has acquired its massive offensive weaponry from Iran. Is that largely true? Yes. I believe that they now have an indigenous capability to build some rockets and missiles as well. They've gotten a great deal of assistance from Iran. There's no question about that. And for what purpose would Iran be helping Hezbollah? Well, I think that Iran is now a mortal enemy of Israel. And, you know, an enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And the Iranians have a deep-seated interest in having close relations with Hezbollah, with Hamas, and with the Houthis. I mean, what we have here is basically a conflict between the United States and Israel on one side, and the Iranians, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and even now the Russians on the other side. And this conflict has really been ramped up since October 7th. And let's call them alliances or clusters, these two clusters of countries, the links between them have tightened since October 7th. The Russians are now doing more to help Iran than they were on October 6th. And I would bet that relations between Iran and Hezbollah and Iran and Hamas, if anything, have improved with the passage of time. They all see themselves as in a war with Israel. And by the way, if you think about why Hezbollah is striking northern Israel, Hezbollah is striking northern Israel in response to what happened after October 7th,

when the Israelis went to war in Gaza. That's when Hamas decided that, excuse me, Hezbollah decided they were going to come to the aid of Hezbollah. And as we've said on this show before, if you want Hezbollah to stop firing rockets into northern Israel, and missiles as well, of course, all you have to do is end the war in Gaza. But you see that Hamas and Hezbollah are supporting each other. Well, surely sending 3,000 booby-trapped beepers and walkie-talkies into the populace of Lebanon is only going to exacerbate things for sure. I mean, what military purpose is served by that? Well, if you believe Alistair Crook, and I believe him, the number of Hezbollah

fighters who were killed by this operation is actually quite small. The people who were killed were innocent civilians. And the consequence of that, I believe, will be that support for Hezbollah and ultimately support for Hamas will only increase in the wider Lebanese population. From my point of view, it makes no sense to kill innocent civilians in Lebanon if you're trying to win hearts and minds among the people in Lebanon. Did you hear anybody in the American government condemn the use of these pagers? Of course not. You would not expect that. Condemning Israel for anything is verboten, and you and I know the reason. It's the Israel lobby.

Take a listen to the only American official that we know of who has spoken publicly on this. Her name is Deborah Lipstadt. She's the State Department envoy to combat anti-Semitism. She was at a gathering sponsored by Mrs. Miriam Adelson. Tell me what you think of what she said. Cut number six. After October 7th, there was a feeling around the world that Israel is weaker. You want a beeper? I can give you a few.

How repellent was that? Yeah, I just don't understand why people like Deborah Lipshot don't understand that that kind of behavior does not help Israel at all. But the Israelis, as you know, and many of their supporters in the United States, believe that they can get away with that kind of arrogance, that they can run around the world doing pretty much anything they want, and the United States will protect them. And the question you want to ask yourself is, where is Israel today? Given the situation on October 7th, at the end of the day, there was no question the Israelis were in deep trouble, but they have pursued a handful of different strategies since October 7th. And it doesn't look to me like they're in better shape today than they were on October 7th. It looks to me like the Netanyahu government and America's, the supporters of Israel in the United States who backed Israel at every turn have blown it big time. Israel is in deep trouble today. You listen to us talk about what's going on

in Gaza and what's going on in Lebanon, and even what's going on with regard to Iran. The Israelis have no solution to these problems. There's no solution. How about what's going on in downtown Tel Aviv with the economy? Exactly. There was a big piece in the Washington Post today that made that clear. And furthermore, they're just wicked centrifugal forces at play inside Israel that are independent of this war, that are, if anything, continuing to tear apart at the fabric of that society. This is a country that is in really deep trouble. And what the Netanyahu government is doing is digging deeper and deeper. And what the Deborah Lipschitz of the world are doing is helping Israel to dig deeper and deeper.

And anybody who criticizes Israel is portrayed as an anti-Semite or anti-Israel or what have you. And in fact, I think most of the critics are much closer to the truth in terms of what's going on here than Israel's supporters and the Israeli government are. Please take a listen to Secretary Blinken. We're transitioning now to Ukraine, although the language that he uses could easily apply to the United States with respect to Gaza. But take a listen, please, to Secretary Blinken two days ago at the United Nations cut number two. Iran has been providing armed drones to the Kremlin since 2022. It built a drone factory in Russia just a few weeks ago, it transferred hundreds of short-range

ballistic missiles to Russia. And Tehran has trained Russian military personnel in Iran how to operate these weapons. Meanwhile, the DPRK has delivered trainloads of weapons and ammunition to Russia, including ballistic missiles, launchers, and millions of artillery rounds. Support from Tehran and Pyongyang is helping Putin inflict carnage, suffering, and ruin on innocent Ukrainian men, women, and children. Not virtually every word he uttered be applied to the United States with respect to Gaza? Of course. But you want to, just to come at this from a slightly different angle, what's happening here is that the United States is driving the Iranians, the Russians, and the Chinese closer and closer together. That's what I was saying before with regard to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. This is just a different cut at it. The Chinese and the Russians have become bosom

buddies in large part because of American policy. This is not in our national interest. Now we've created a situation where the Russians are helping the Iranians and the Iranians are helping the Russians. This is not in our interest. But American policy does this, right? You know, we think we can run around the world threatening any country at any time and in any place, and it's going to have no consequences because everybody respects American power. This line of thinking is destined to get us into a lot of trouble And it already has got us into a lot of trouble And is likely to get us into even more trouble President Biden at the UN this week

Made some rather startling claims He claimed that as a result of his stewardship NATO is united NATO is stronger, and Putin has failed. Is any of this even remotely true? No. No. I mean, the Russians, as we've talked about so many times, are on a roll in eastern Ukraine. They're going to win the war. What exactly the victory looks like is hard to say. But the Russians are in the driver's seat. The balance of power decisively favors them.

And if anything, it's shifting even more in their favor. So this idea that we're going to win the war against Russia in Ukraine is not a serious argument. I find it hard to believe that people like Joe Biden are making this argument at this point in time. It shows you how detached from reality he is. Here he is, Chris, cut number 14. So my direction, America stepped into the breach, providing massive security and economic and humanitarian assistance. Our NATO allies and partners in 50-plus nations stood up as well. But most importantly, the Ukrainian people stood up.

I asked the people of this chamber to stand up for them. The good news is Putin's war has failed at his core aim. He set out to destroy Ukraine, but Ukraine is still free. He set out to weaken NATO, but NATO is bigger, stronger, more united than ever before. This is hogwash. Yeah, hard to disagree. I don't know what to say. And it'll be very interesting to see how he reacts between now and the time he leaves office at the end of January as the situation in Ukraine continues to deteriorate. I mean, as we're talking, the situation is looking quite dire for the Ukrainians on the Eastern Front. The Russians are overrunning the very important strategic town of Vugladar, and they're making great progress in all sorts of other areas on the Eastern Front.

Furthermore, they're reducing the Kursk salient, and they're continuing to pound the energy infrastructure in Ukraine from the air. There are estimates that approximately 400,000 Ukrainians will leave the country in 2024, in large part because of what we're doing to the energy system there, and the fact that people won't have electricity for, you know, maybe 20 hours a day, 18 hours a day during the upcoming winter. So the situation in Ukraine is catastrophic. The Russians are in the driver's seat. Oh, but Professor Mearsheimer, as we speak, President Zelensky is presenting a victory plan to President Biden in the White House. One could only imagine what could conceivably be in there.

Yeah, well, he's equally delusional. I mean, I don't know what to say. When I listen to these people talk, you know, they're talking about a world that bears little resemblance to reality. You've reached a point where it's hard to take them seriously. You know, they could make these kind of arguments in early 2023 or certainly in late 2022 when the Ukrainians were in much better shape than they are now. But in late September 2024, when you look at what's happening, when you look at where this train is headed, to make the kinds of arguments that President Zelensky and Biden are making are just, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the United States should not, along with Britain, authorize the use of American and British long-term missiles to reach deep into Russia. According to our friend and colleague, Professor Gilbert Doctorow, the Kremlin didn't believe what President Biden said and fears that it may have been a stunt until Election Day or that he may change his mind.

Here's Foreign Minister Lavrov being very, very serious and stern about all of this. Cut number 10. No one wants nuclear war. We said this time and again. Let me assure you that we have weapons which, if used, will cause grave consequences for the masters of the Ukrainian regime. These weapons are available and on full alert status. How dangerous is that? These weapons are available and on full alert status. Well, what's happened here, in conjunction with what Lavrov just said, is that the Russians have issued a new nuclear doctrine,

and Putin has publicly elucidated what this doctrine is. Here it is, cut number 21. The updated version of the document proposes that aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear weapon state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear weapon state, should be regarded as a joint attack on the Russian Federation. The conditions for Russia's transition to the use of nuclear weapons are also clearly defined. We will consider such a possibility as soon as we receive reliable information about a massive launch of aerospace attack means and their crossing of our state border, meaning strategic or tactical aircraft,

cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic missiles, and other aircraft. We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Union State. All these issues have been agreed upon with the Belarusian side and with the President of Belarus. This includes cases when the enemy, using conventional weapons, poses a critical threat to our sovereignty. Statements made after President Biden and Prime Minister Starmer said we're not giving permission for long-range missiles. Your comments? A couple of very important points here. First of all, despite all the talk that Putin has drawn red lines in the past, and we crossed them and got away with it, the fact is he has not drawn red lines in the past. At the most, he's drawn light pink lines. This is a clear red line.

The Russians have changed their nuclear doctrine. Their nuclear doctrine up to now did not say that they would contemplate or reserve the right to use nuclear weapons if a non-nuclear country attacked them with missiles, and those missiles were provided by a nuclear state. This is the Ukraine-NATO situation to a T. That's now reflected in more general language in the doctrine. And Lavrov is saying, and Putin is saying, this is a red line. You want to understand, this is the first time the Russians have drawn a clear red line. Do you think that Biden, Blinken, Austin, and Sullivan got the message? There is no question that Biden and Austin understood this before Putin spoke, before the Russians changed the doctrine. Blinken is another matter. I think Blinken did not get

the message. I think Blinken is the one who led Keir Starmer to think that Biden would give him permission to fire storm shadows into Russia. But I believe that what happened is that the Pentagon overruled Blinken and told Biden in no uncertain terms that this was not going to happen because we don't want to get vaporized. That's what's going on here. So the problem in the administration is that Tony Blinken is the Secretary of State. And Tony Blinken, as we've talked about on many occasions in different contexts on this show, is a fool. There's no other way to describe him. He's a threat to our national security, his Secretary of State. And fortunately, the Pentagon and President Biden. I mean, we want to give President Biden credit here. He told

Starmer that there were not going to be any storm shadows launched against Russia. And hopefully he won't change his mind between now and the time he leaves office. But we're playing with fire here. And these people who are arguing that, you know, we've crossed all these Russian red lines in the past, and if we cross one more, it won't matter. I think this is remarkably foolish, given that we're talking about the possibility of nuclear escalation. Professor Mearsheimer, thank you very much, my dear friend. Great analysis, as always. Much appreciated. All the best, and I hope you'll come back and join us again next week. I'll be here. Thank you. Thank you so much. Coming up at four o'clock,

Max Blumenthal and at 4.45 from midnight almost in Moscow, Pepe Escobar. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. I'm out.