Judging Freedom - Prof. John Mearsheimer: Israel In Trouble

Episode Date: November 20, 2024

Prof. John Mearsheimer: Israel In TroubleSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. WGU is an online accredited university that specializes in personalized learning. With courses available 24-7 and monthly start dates, you can earn your degree on your schedule. You may even be able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Wednesday, November 20th, 2024.

Professor John Mearsheimer joins us now. Professor Mearsheimer, it's a pleasure, my dear friend. Thank you very much for accommodating our schedule. I want to spend some time with you on the latest events in Israel and what your views are of whether or not the relationship between Israel and the United States can or will change under the Trump administration. But before we get there, I'd like to ask you some questions about your views on the events in Iran, excuse me, in Ukraine. Over the weekend, the Biden administration announced that it was going to authorize the use of Americans to fire long range missiles into Russia. And they have done so.

They fired six, five were neutralized, and one destroyed a Russian ammunition depot about 75 miles into Russia. And just last night, the president announced that he would allow the Ukrainians to use American anti-personnel mines, not the remote control ones, but the ones that are set off when you step on them or get too close to them. Where do you think this is going? Well, I think what's happening here is that the Biden administration has two concerns. One, when Ukraine finally loses this war, the Biden administration wants to be able to say that it did everything possible to prevent that outcome. And I think given this last tranche of weapons to Ukraine, they believe will help on that front. Second point I'd make to you is there is a danger that the Ukrainians will collapse before January 20th. In other words, the military defeat

will take place during the Biden presidency. And that's the last thing Biden wants. He wants the collapse or the defeat to occur under Donald Trump so that Biden and the Democrats can blame Trump. So what they're doing here is they're doing everything possible to make sure that Ukraine doesn't collapse before January 20th. And their belief is that by giving them these mines and by allowing them to use a TACOMS to attack into Russia, that will help somewhat to stem the tide and make sure that Trump ends up getting blamed for Ukraine's defeat. Almost like Trump, whose Secretary of State Mike Pompeo negotiated the departure of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, but delayed, delayed, delayed it until it happened on Biden's watch,

and Biden got blamed for a catastrophic departure, almost as if it's a tit-for-tat. I think the analogy is an excellent one. I mean, let's face it, as we've been saying on the show for God knows how long, Ukraine is an utter disaster. And when it finally becomes clear that Ukraine has lost, the question is going to be who has blood on their hands. And the fact is, whether you like Donald Trump or not, it is not Donald Trump. It is Joe Biden, who is principally responsible for what's happened since February 24th, 2022. And he deserves the blame, not Trump. But of course, what's going on here is he's trying to avoid that. This extension of hostilities, this, as the Russians call it, qualitative difference,

is done without regard for morality, without regard for military needs, without regard to the law. It's just being done to extend a useless, fruitless, catastrophic war. I hope you're not surprised by that. No, I am not surprised. You've surely noticed what's going on in Gaza, which is that the Biden administration is complicit in a genocide. So when you have an administration that's complicit in a genocide, the idea that they're going to act morally or pay attention to international law when it comes to Ukraine is not a serious argument. The timing of this obviously is intended to interfere with the Trump smooth transition, I guess is the only way to characterize it. But I want you to look at what Sergei Lavrov had to say, the foreign minister of Russia earlier today. It is his words that I quoted

earlier without giving him credit, a qualitatively new phase. He understands, as you do, that American data is downloaded from satellites, a process involving top-secret information. American technicians are inputting data and programming the missiles, top-secret information. He knows that American troops are doing this. Here's the way he put it. Cut number 14. Well, on the decision of the United States to allow Ukrainian regime to use missiles up to 300 kilometers long. We read what the New York Times published about this.

There are still no confirmation either from the White House or from the Pentagon. But we basically take our position on the basis of what is going on physically. And physically, ATAKOMs, apparently not as long as 300 kilometers, are being used, including this early morning in Russia, against the Bryansk Oblast of Russia, which is bordering Ukraine. And we proceed from the understanding that this is happening and that any modification of ATACOMs cannot be used without American experts and instructors, including satellite data, including programming and targeting. The president mentioned this several times. If long-range missiles are going to be applied from Ukraine into Russian territory, it will also mean that they are operated by American experts, military experts. And we will be taking this as a qualitatively new phase of the Western war against Russia.

And we will react accordingly. And we will react accordingly. And we will react accordingly. What do you think they'll do? Well, let me just say that when he says it's a qualitatively new phase, I certainly understand what he's saying. But I think the most important question is, what impact do you think that this will have on the course of the war? Because that means an enormous amount to the Russians. Yes, it is true that the Americans have crossed the red

line here, but I would argue that crossing this red line is going to have hardly any military consequence. That's the point I tried to make earlier. Whatever Biden is thinking, this is of no military consequence. Big deal. They blew up an ammunition depot and they wasted six missiles to do it. Russians have launched probably somewhere in the order of 6,000 missiles at Ukraine, and Ukraine is still fighting. You really wonder what 50 missiles, 58 TACMAs missiles, are going to do to change the balance of power. And the answer is hardly anything at all. So I don't think this is that big a deal. I do think that the Russians have a vested interest in doing something to deter future moves like this by the Americans. So they want to send a signal. But I don't think the Russians want to overreact here. I think they just want to continue to do pretty much what they're doing on the battlefield and win the war. The British have fired some storm shadows. Also, in this case, they attacked

a residential neighborhood, so it probably caused death. Look, in both of these decisions, Professor Mearsheimer, you will recall President Biden, as recently as a month ago, to the embarrassment of the British prime minister, who had not been given any forewarning, said, we're not going to do it. It's too dangerous. He also said about a year ago he wasn't going to allow them to use landmines. Now, after his administration has been repudiated overwhelmingly by the electorate, he decides to allow the long-term missiles fired by Americans and allow the use of the landmines illegal in 160 countries, but not Ukraine, Russia, or the United States. The politics here cannot be gainsaid or overlooked, but we're talking about human lives. Yes, but again, I think what's going on here is that Biden is mainly concerned with who's going to be blamed for the loss of Ukraine, and are people going to be able to say that Ukraine lost

because Biden didn't give them all the weapons they need? So that's really what's going on here. And this is hardly surprising that, you know, the Biden administration is trying to undermine the Trump administration before it takes office on January 20th. This is what happened back in 2016. The Democrats and the deep state went to great lengths to cause Trump enormous problems before he took office in January 2017. And we see this again. Yes, the George H.W. Bush administration did the same thing in Eastern Europe to Bill Clinton. So these things happen. Let's transition over to Israel. How dangerous for

the United States is its current relationship with Israel? Well, I think it's very dangerous for the United States. There are three big conflicts taking place here, one with Hamas, where the Palestinians more generally, if you want to throw in the West Bank, two with Hezbollah, and three with Iran. And the United States needs these three conflicts like it needs a hole in the head. And furthermore, and very importantly, because we are deeply involved in the Gaza genocide, we have a situation where the United States, and in particular, President Biden and his administration, is complicit in a genocide. This is a moral stain on America's reputation that's going to last for a very,

very long time. So from my point of view, our relationship with Israel today is disastrous, both strategically and morally. I have to go back to Ukraine. Forgive me, I forgot to ask you. Donald Trump has said he can end the war in 24 hours. Is that even conceivable? No. It's not even conceivable that he can end the war in 24 days or 24 weeks, maybe even 24 months. The Russians are unequivocal on what the terms are for even starting negotiations. And one is that Ukraine has to be a permanently neutral country. In other words, a country that's not NATO and has no security ties with the West. And here we're talking mainly about the United States. And number two, both the West

and Ukraine have to accept the fact that Russia has annexed Crimea and those four oblasts in the east that they now control. And without accepting those two provisos, Putin says, we don't even negotiate. Well, I find it hard to imagine that Donald Trump is going to accept the fact that Ukraine will have no security relationship with the West and will not be a NATO. And I find it hard to believe that Donald Trump and the Ukrainians as well will accept the fact that those four oblasts and Crimea are Russian territory forever. So it's just very hard for me to see President Trump accepting the provisos that Putin has said are absolutely essential if there's going to be any deal. Hmm. Jake Sullivan, who's the president's national security advisor, revealed that of the 240 or 260 billion, depending on how you count it, that Congress authorized, they have about 7 billion with a B remaining and that Joe Biden plans to spend it. The Pentagon will spend 3.5 billion a month in the next two months. How much longer can Ukraine hold out if Donald

Trump cuts off the pipeline at noon on January 20th? Are they receiving enough ammunition and equipment from other Western nations that will sustain them if Trump cuts everything off? Or do they have enough to last for, as you said, 24 weeks or 24 months? Well, it's very important, and this was implicit in your question, to distinguish between money and weapons. We can give them money, but they don't need dollar bills. What they need are equipment. What they need is equipment. They need artillery tubes. They need tanks. They need infantry fighting vehicles. They need lots of artillery shells, air defense systems, on and on. And very importantly, they need manpower. And we can't give them any of those things in sufficient numbers to turn the

tide here. It's just not going to happen. So Biden can spend all the money he wants. It just doesn't matter. With regard to what's going to happen here, it is possible that the entire front will collapse before January 20th, despite the fact that Biden is shoveling all this money at the Ukrainians. This just shows you how hopeless the situation is. But I have long argued that I think the key effect of Trump will not be so much the material effects of cutting off the flow of money and weaponry as limited as it is to Ukraine. The key effect will be on the morale of the Ukrainian army. It's quite clear that at this point in time, the Ukrainian army is losing

the war. They're on their back foot and they're in deep trouble. And I think the fact that Trump is coming into the White House and Trump has made it clear he's not committed to defending Ukraine forever is going to cause, in all likelihood, a morale crisis inside the Ukraine military we're giving equipment and then giving cash to the defense manufacturers in the U.S. to replace the equipment. So it's a win-win for the defense manufacturers. There is much truth in that. Going back to Israel, do you think Israel will attack Iran without the active military assistance of the United States? The interesting question is, what will Israel do if there's evidence that Iran is going down the nuclear road? I think that's the contingency under which Israel will seriously contemplate attacking Iran. And the Americans have indicated up to now, and this includes the Biden administration and most

of the people who are coming in at the top with President Trump, that if Iran were to go down the nuclear road, the United States would not let that happen, in which case both the United States and Israel would attack Iran. Now, the question is, what would happen if the Americans sort of welched on their promise and the Americans said, you know, we understand that Ukraine is probably developing a nuclear weapon, but we're not willing to start a major war with Iran. The question you have to ask yourself is what would the Israelis do then? It's quite clear that they do not have the sufficient conventional weaponry to shut down the Iranian nuclear program. Then the question becomes, would the Israelis use nuclear weapons, and we know the Israelis have a nuclear arsenal, to shut down Iran's burgeoning nuclear weapons capability?

And I think there is a serious possibility that they would. And what would Russia and China do if Israel uses nuclear weapons on Iran? China buys 90% of its oil from Iran. Well, it's not clear what they would do. I mean, they're not going to start a nuclear war. And if the Israelis were to use nuclear weapons, it's not clear what anybody would do at that point. I mean, the Iranians would certainly be incentivized in the extreme to get their own nuclear weapons. So they had a nuclear deterrent that could prevent a further attack of that sort. Well, if the attack were not nuclear and the U.S. decided to help

Netanyahu, how would Donald Trump sell this to the American public? I mean, stated differently, what would be the purpose of an American war, boots on the ground and jets in the air in the Middle East? Well, they'd have no trouble selling it. The lobby would go into overdrive. You could count on the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the mainstream media to tell a story why it was in Israel's interest and America's interest, and they'd have no trouble selling it. Of course, in the alternative media, in shows like this, we would tell a different story, of course, but in the mainstream media, they'd have no problem selling this. And what would the American objective be to destroy the Iranian nuclear capability

and allow the Israelis to retain theirs? Of course, that would be the goal. But as I've said before on the show, I think over the long term, that's an impossible goal to achieve. I mean, there's no question that there is a serious chance that the United States, especially, but working with the Israelis, could tear apart Iran's nuclear capability, but it would only be for the short term. The Iranians would eventually build that capability in places that we could not get at, and they would end up with nuclear weapons. And this would be disastrous.

But that doesn't mean that we, the Americans and the Israelis, wouldn't try if we thought that Iran was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and indeed intended to acquire nuclear weapons. What would be the strategic cost to the United States, if any, of not assisting the Israelis to attack Iran? Well, the United States has a vested interest, independent of Israel, in preventing proliferation. And we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. And if Iran has nuclear weapons, this is not considered good. But the problem is much bigger than that, because if Iran gets nuclear weapons, the Saudis have said they will get nuclear weapons. And of course, the Turks, the Iraqis, and the Egyptians won't be far behind. So you would have, I believe, significant nuclear

proliferation in the Middle East if Iran were to get nuclear weapons. And the process of proliferation would be full of potential dangers because different states would have incentives to take out other states' nuclear capabilities before they reached fruition. So it would be a very messy and dangerous process, and one that we'd like to avoid. And that, of course, is why we have gone to great lengths, independent of Israel, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But the proliferation has begun. India has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Pakistan might come to the aid of Iran.

I mean, does the Trump crew understand the danger of blindly giving Netanyahu everything he wants? No. But just to go to the nuclear issue, you want to remember that it's President Trump who in 2018 pulled out of the JCPOA. That was the nuclear arms control agreement that Barack Obama and the Chinese and the Russians and the Germans and the French and the British had worked out with Iran in 2015. We had basically shut down for a long time the Iranian nuclear program in 2015 with the JCPOA. But of course, the Israelis hated that agreement. Benjamin Netanyahu in particular hated that agreement. And he put tremendous pressure on

the United States to kill it. And Donald Trump foolishly killed it in 2018. And he said, what we're going to do instead is put maximum pressure on Iran. And he thought that this strategy of maximum pressure would work. But of course, it has not worked. And now Iran is really very close to being able to build a nuclear weapon. And it's in large part because we pulled out of the JCPOA. So listening to Netanyahu and the Israelis more generally was a foolish thing to do. How precarious is Israel as a state today? Israel is in deep trouble. There is no question about that. In Gaza, they have not defeated Hamas. They have no solution for putting an end to that war and allowing themselves to get out of there. In fact, they're stuck there. And you want to remember

that they pulled out, I think it was in 2006 because it was a hornet's nest. Well, they're back in the hornet's nest. They've been unable to defeat Hezbollah. Hezbollah is still firing over 100 rockets and missiles per night into Israel. And with regard to Iran, they can whack Iran, but Iran whacks them back. So they've not created a situation where they have escalation dominance over Iran. And indeed, as we were just talking about, Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. And then when you look inside Israel and you look at the centrifugal forces at play inside that society, and you couple that with the state of the Israeli economy, Israel is in real trouble. And even when the shooting stops, there's no good reason to think that the trouble is going to end. This is a

country that is in deep trouble and is going to remain in deep trouble for as far as the eye can see. And the fingers will be pointed at Benjamin Netanyahu, one of whose corruption trials is resuming, even though he's the sitting prime minister. Yeah, I think that that's right. I think once all the shooting stops and people have a chance to take stock of what's happened, it's going to be disastrous for Netanyahu. Because you want to remember, he was in charge on October 7th, and he had pretty good relations with Hamas before October 7th. He was not unsatisfied with the presence of Hamas in Gaza, and he was in an indirect way helping to keep Hamas in power. And then, of course, Israel got surprised on October 7th. So I think that, you know, he's going to get a lot of blame

once people begin to write about what happened during this conflict. His chief spokesperson is indicted and incarcerated without bail, and the allegation is falsifying records about to whom Benjamin Netanyahu spoke and when he spoke to those people on the morning of October 7th. that were designed to put the blame on Hamas for what was happening with regard to not reaching some sort of negotiated settlement in Gaza that show his office behaving in unethical ways. Professor Bersheimer, a pleasure, my dear friend. I hope we can chat next week. If we miss you, happy Thanksgiving, but it was a short week and I hope we can find time together. Likewise, and happy Thanksgiving to you if we don't talk. Thank you. Thank you, Professor. All the best. Coming up remaining today at 4.30 Eastern, Max Blumenthal at 5 o'clock Eastern, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.